Democrats & Liberals Archives

Fires Are Harder To Put Out Than They Are To Start

Fires are harder to put out than they are to start. The constant meme out of the McCain campaign has been that Obama is a Muslim, hates the United States, is a person to be afraid of, and now that he is a terrorist.

It has put John McCain in the unenviable political position of having to defend the character of the man he is running against. However, that is unlikely to do anything to put out the fire that has been started.

McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was a naked play to garner the support of the so-called Republican base - narrow fundamentalist Christians. Let me be clear that NOT all Fundamentalist Christians (and not even the majority of them) are "radical" (meaning wanting to take over the government of the United States and reshape the country into a religious fiefdom). However, that is the base that McCain went after. It is the "base" that George Bush supposedly captured.

Starting with the meme that Obama was a Muslim schooled in madrassas, the seed was planted that he was a "born and trained" terrorist. Even the long term relationship with Reverend Wright was not portrayed as proof of his Christianity, but was "proof" of his hatred of the United States. (Regardless that it should make no difference even if Obama was Muslim.) Repeatedly, McCain and - as a drum beat - Palin, have told the groups they are speaking to that they are "scared" of Obama. More recently, it has been the constant meme that Obama consorts with "terrorists" - namely Bill Ayres who was a leader of the Weatherman Underground 40 years ago.

As the carefully crafted memes aimed at inspiring fear of Obama in relationship to race, terrorism, and anti-Americanism, have been accelerated, the crowds at McCain-Palin political rallies have seemed more of a mob than a political rally. The more vehement the rhetoric, the more attractive McCain and Palin have become to the racist "right." It was predictable. It was intentional. It has not stopped.

Here are a few videos of what has been happening.

Here is a CNN report on Palin accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."

Here is the DemocracyNow report about crowd response to Palin pushing the Obama-terrorism "connection."

Here is video from a McCain rally where the carefully instilled memes are repeated back from the crowd - clearly a political "success" for the McCain campaign.

Which has brought McCain to the point of defending Obama's character.

While I respect that McCain is publicly stepping back from the hateful rhetoric, at the same time, the memes are being reinforced with McCain approved ads such as this one:


Of course, underlying all of this is the issue of race. The McCain campaign doesn't even need to play the "race card" because it is embedded in the "American" consciousness. They just need to hint and it comes to the surface. This is obvious in crowd comments using racial epithets and saying that terrorism is "in his blood line."

The reinforcement of both racism and bigotry has been called up numerous times by surrogates of the McCain campaign mentioning Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. The Hussein is stressed to make a Saddam Hussein / Muslim / terrorist connection, but the use of his middle name plays an other important rhetorical role. Namely, that middle names are most frequently used to denote serious criminals - particularly murders (John Wayne Gasey) and assassins (John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald). The use of the middle name preconditions a perception of wrong doing and threat. Imagine the impact of the repeated use John Sidney McCain or Sarah Louise Palin.

The selection of Palin itself has been used as a racial rallying point - for "whites." Palin's constant reference to "Hockey Moms" and "Joe Sixpacks" are not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. They are intended - and do - promote the idea that Palin is of and politically/culturally embraces a "white" stereotypical identity. Her constant repetition of that mantra is more than a subliminal "white" rallying cry. Combine that with her telling those coming to see her that Obama is "scary," un-American, hates the nation, and is actively associated with "terrorists," they have created an explosive "mob" mentality. The "threat" of Obama is to the (white) Hockey/Soccer Moms and the (white) Joe Sixpacks.

This fire has been started and fed by McCain, Palin, the McCain campaign, and the various "swift boat" groups supporting them. Now they have a very unsightly (and potentially dangerous) conflagration on their hands. It is clear from the booing of McCain as he attempts to tamp down the fire that many of "his people" see such statements as backsliding and traitorous - or only for "show." The latter interpretation will likely prevail as the campaign continues to make the "terrorist" "anti-American" campaign ads. It is reinforced by the drumbeat question of "Who is Barack Obama?" A question - within the manufactured context - that reinforces the idea that he is part of a covert terrorist cell bent on destroying the (white) United States. A message apparently being reinforced out of at least one McCain Campaign Office.

In an interview with Galyle Quinnell (the woman who said she didn't trust Obama because he was an Arab and McCain corrected), she has pages and p[ages of "bad stuff" about Obama, and that it is being distributed through the McCain campaign office in Shakoppe, Minnesotta where she volunteers. She has passed this information onto hundreds of people. She does not know why McCain attempted to deny Obama's Arab origin, or said Obama was a "decent" person. From news reports, Andy Martin was the originator to the rumor about Obama being a Muslim - and other negative and incorrect information.

The McCain campaign has built and poured gasoline on the fire. It is highly unlikely they can bring that fire under control - even if they really wanted to.

The question is the broader effect of this strategy, and people's (particularly "white" people's) response to the calls of "terrorist" and "kill him" from those at the McCain - Palin "rallies." Will folks be turned off by such blatant plays to, and expressions of, hatred and bigotry? Or will their fears raised as well? Will the version of exceptionalist ideology of white racism come into play - "Obama is a 'good' one" carry the day? At this point, it is difficult to say. However, what McCain's strategy has done is to significantly raise the risk of violent action against Obama (and increased the likelihood of racial/ethnic hate violence generally). Further, it is hardening and encouraging a violent and organized racist segment of the population.

Despite all of this, Obama leads in the polls; Palin was booed at a hockey game at which she was introduced and threw out the puck, and I personally know a group of "Hockey Moms for Obama." In other words, a large section of the (white) population is not buying into the McCain - Palin fear mongering and rhetorical ploys.


Posted by Rowan Wolf at October 13, 2008 11:13 PM
Comments
Comment #266763
The constant meme out of the McCain campaign has been that Obama is a Muslim, hates the United States, is a person to be afraid of, and now that he is a terrorist.

In one sentence you’ve just made four accusations, and three of them are outright brazen lies. Doesn’t that bother you even a little?

When has anybody in the McCain campaign said that Obama is a Muslim?

When has anybody in the McCain campaign said that Obama hates the United States?

When has anybody in the McCain campaign ever said that Barack Obama is a terrorist?

These lies are the worst kind imaginable because they’re inflammatory and divisive. Not only can you not name one instance of McCain or his campaign saying anything of the kind, you say it’s a constant meme. Bull!

People should be afraid of Obama? I’ll grant you that the McCain campaign says stuff along those lines, but for none of the reasons you’re saying. For higher taxes, winning in Iraq, etc, but Obama is also saying that people should be afraid of McCain for economic and other reasons. There’s nothing unusual about creating that kind of fear about candidates.

Support Obama or support McCain, but resorting to lies like this is shameful.

Posted by: Liam at October 13, 2008 11:51 PM
Comment #266765

It is purely semantics. Your argument is too, so mine will be as well. They are purely implying that he is a terrorist loyalist by saying in her hockey mom phrase “pal’ing around” with terrorist.

As far as he hates america, Palin (above) says, “I am fearful that he does not see the US the same way as you and I, as the greates source for good in this world”

i.e. he doesn’t like the US


FALSE! It is the people like those in the video that spread this mierda.

Posted by: horse at October 14, 2008 12:53 AM
Comment #266766

Liam,
All of those claims are present in the videos I included. You are right that the McCain Campaign did not start some of those rumors, but they have definitely forwarded them.

Remember the lapel pin issue? How about Palin saying that Obama “hates” the United States so much that he “pals around with terrorists.” How about folks introducing McCain and/or Palin talking about Barack HUSSEIN Obama - just happened again over the weekend.


Posted by: rowan at October 14, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #266767

None of what Rowan has stated is a lie….and if you’ll read a little more carefully, you’ll see that she is saying this is all coming from the campaign……not from McCain’s mouth necessarily. It is irrelevent, though, because it is people speaking on his behalf, and he is not making any effort to stop it.
And Palin is not doing herself any favors these days. The results of the investigation into “Troopergate” indicates that she did, in fact, abuse her power. Now she is trying to put a spin on that and dig herself out. A lot more things coming to light about even more of her abuse of funding and services while in a publicly elected position. She is dirty….

Posted by: janedoe at October 14, 2008 1:38 AM
Comment #266768

Here is some more interesting reading:

http://blog.progressivedem.com/2008/10/11/will-main-stream-media-check-if-gop-vps-500000-house-is-a-ted-stevens-clone.aspx

http://rebelcentral.net/blog/?p=858

phx8 brought this up a couple of days ago in another thread. It is getting more attention, and more questions are being asked now.

Posted by: janedoe at October 14, 2008 1:54 AM
Comment #266770

Rowan,
McCain and Palin seem to be trying to get Obama killed. Obviously rigged voting machines and voter caging isn’t thought to be enough this time around. And of course the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook has informed them that inciting one of their rabid and racist followers to assassinate Obama is the only way they can really hope to win this election.
My what “Good Christians” and “Patriotic Americans” these two are! Right along with the kind of brain-dead GOP supporters who very easily pick up on all these statements geared toward white supremacists, and racial hatred and violence in general. I’m sure the Secret Service just loves how these two are running such a “clean and respectful” campaign, as promised.

Jane,
McCain and Palin are nothing but despicable Crooks and Liars.

Check this out:

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis on Fox News this morning, when asked by Chris Wallace about the Troopergate report issued on Friday:

“The reality is there was absolutely no wrongdoing found in the report — 1,000 pages — an enormous waste of time — and the best they could come up with was: no violations of any kinds of laws or ethics rules.”

From finding Number One of the Report:

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) provides: “The Legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”
There’s no lie too brazen. There’s not a modicum of personal responsibility or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Even bipartisan, unanimous investigations that result in adverse findings of wrongdoing are smeared and dismissed away (Davis: ”kangaroo court” — “big public circus” — ”this now drops dead and there’ll be no follow-up at all”). Chris Wallace, who is actually more decent as an interviewer than most of his colleagues, interrupted and confronted Davis with his lie — “No, it said she violated the state Ethics laws” — but Davis just persisted as brazenly as before with the lie. That’s a perfect snapshot for what we’ve had the last eight years.
Here’s what Sarah Palin said today on a conference call with Alaskan reporters about the Troopergate report; her lying is so brazen that it’s nothing short of despicable (first ellipses in original):

Palin: Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me and, Meg, you want me to just jump right on in there?

Stapleton: Sure governor, go ahead.

Palin: OK cool.

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that… .He did what any – I think — any rational person would do so again, nothing to apologize there with Todd’s actions and again very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing.

The Report explicitly found that she “abused her power” by “violating” an Alaskan ethical statute — a law — and she’s stating that the Report “cleared her of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity.” Again, if she wants to dispute or disagree with the Report’s conclusions, that’s her right. But what she said here is just a bald-faced lie about what the Report says. There’s just no other way to describe that.

Link

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: McCain-Palin: Not McSame, McWorse.

Btw, have you heard that even the likes of Christopher Hitchens can’t bear to stomach these two any longer?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 14, 2008 3:34 AM
Comment #266772

Rowan,

Good spread, well written and great video support. You’ve told it like the rest of us wish we could (especially after I got myself mired down over in the right column).

janedoe/VV,

Telling links…thanks.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 4:41 AM
Comment #266773

The danger in McCaim’s remarks is that people in his campaign and around are, unchallenged and simultaneously, making implications about Obama’s foreign roots, his foreign name, The Arabic sound of his name, and association with terrorists, even going so far as to compare him to Osama Bin Laden. Others are making noises that he is a secret muslim.

This is, intentional or not, an emergent argument that he is a sleeper, and even though reasonable people are unlikely to believe this is true, there are plenty of unreasonable, violent, and prejudiced individuals who aren’t going to be so incredulous.

That’s the danger.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 7:13 AM
Comment #266776

This is all more of exactly what I am talking about in the red column, a play for the reenforcement of pure blind prejudice. There are no issues here. Only the exact sort of “narrow” “fear mongering” the left accuses the right of.

It is pretty ridiculous since the first inklings of the Muslim attack line came out of the Clinton campaign before the primaries began.

This whole effort on the part of Democrats is meant to strike terror into the followers of BOTH parties.

By the way, Christopher Hitchens is a rabid evangelical atheist, an Ayn Rand Republican, who only supports Republicans on philosophical grounds, not out of an adherance to any religious ideals.

The prejudice in this article is so thick if you let youself get mired in it, regardless of your home party, you’ll never get out. It solves nothing. It is MEANT TO SOLVE NOTHING. It does not even try to develop national understanding, healing, or consensus.
Quoting the last paragraph of my most recent article-

“Are Republicans immune to this? (prejudice) No. And when we presume the press “hates” and oppresses conservatives (thus playing the same game the old Southerners played) we prove our frailty. Democrats and Liberals, however, must be willing to admit they are not a superior form of human being. The fact that they mean well, and they DO mean well, does not mean their methods can’t do harm. Nor does it mean they do not have prejudices they can’t see in themselves that weigh against the very goals they profess to desire.”

Reaching across the aisle? Nonsense!
Unifying, bringing us together? Nonsense! These tactics are the very essence of “doing harm”.

What have conservatives to fear? Just look at This and this from the epicenter of the media machines who decide what is a “normal” attitude for America. If this is what liberals act like when they don’t have the power to do to us as they wish what will they be like when they DO?
(If that link doesn’t work just copy and paste-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

This is the fear YOU mean to inflict, perhaps in the hope of provoking violence on the part of conservatives, which you could then use as a pretext for spreading even more fear, a sort of liberal Kristallnacht. Why, it might even profit you to plant a few people calling for Obama’s head.. (What a thought, …)

Want to end this cycle of paranoia?

Ditch the bigotry.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 9:28 AM
Comment #266777

I am looking forward to the debate on Wednesday. This is bound to come up. McCain has said he will bring it up. If he doesn’t surely the moderator will bring it up. I am looking forward to Barack’s reply. After Barack nailed McCain in the last one about calling him (Barack) naive and lacking understanding, I am hoping for Barack to put McCain down on this too.

I have heard repubs. whine about well Barack is saying McCain is old whenever you call them out about McCain’s attempts to paint Barack as a terrorist. There is one difference McCain is OLD!!!! what is being said about Barack isn’t true and plus what McCain is doing is much worse than calling someone old. I live in Charlotte, North Carolina and I realize that charlotte is a little more cosmopolitan than the rural parts of NC but I have been excited and pleased when I wear my Obama button in public at the response I get and how many people get excited and want to talk about what is going on. I am out and about in all kinds of neighborhoods in Charlotte and have yet to get any type of negative response. I have done some voter registration and phone calling for Barack and Kay Hagan who is running against E. Dole and by and large the response has been positive and upbeat. I hope that I am not being overly optimistic but I feel that most people are rejecting this garbage. I just hope we can get through this campaign without some nutjob trying to kill Barack or going on a shooting spree somewhere.

Posted by: Carolina at October 14, 2008 9:28 AM
Comment #266778

Carolina,
I live near Raleigh and have been afraid to put out an Obama sign - there are a lot of McCain signs. Your post has given me some encouragement to try it.

By the way I now know why the McCain put out a pre-emptive report clearing Palin on troopergate. because now that the real report is out she can say the report has cleared her - by technically referring to the McCain staff report. How cheap.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 14, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #266780

Rowan Wolf

I have watched each of the video clips and this is my take:

1.CNN Report, “palling around with terrorists”: We know that BHO was involved with Ayres (who is a terrorists). Because the major network and cable media are in the tank for BHO, we will never see them do an objective investigation of the connection. In fact CNN is defending BHO against the charges in this video. As time goes on, more information will come out.

2.The DemocracyNow Report, “connection”: again everything said by Palin is common knowledge. And again, more of this information will be brought out in the future. The scary thing is, the left is willing to excuse implications and attack anyone else who brings this up.

3.The 3rd video: These people have a right to express their own opinions. The site sponsoring this video is “bloggerinterrupted.com”. A left wing blog site that proposed Palin’s son was really her grandson. So much for non-partisan. He kept asking the questions of when they had first heard of Palin or BHO. He also found it unbelievable that these people would support Palin after only 1 to 12 months of being introduced to her, and yet did not find it strange that these people would question BHO after being introduced to him this past year. What is the difference? If it were a conservative blog site questioning BHO supporters at a rally, wouldn’t he get the same answers?

4.The 4th video, “defending Obama’s character”: How else should McCain have handled this? Under the 1st Amendment, did this man have the right to make this statement?

5.The last video “McCain approved ads”: This ad is documented and can be researched. As I said before, as time goes by, more and more info will come out.

You also state:
“Of course, underlying all of this is the issue of race. The McCain campaign doesn’t even need to play the “race card” because it is embedded in the “American” consciousness.”

I listened to everything that was said and nothing was mentioned about “race”. The only one bringing up “race” is you.

Bringing up the name “Hussein” is not bringing up race. If anything, it is identifying BHO with a religion. And since the left believes so strongly in the “separation of church and state”, why do you even bring this up? Are you defending his religion? How many times have I heard the left make fun of the “Christian” religion? I have never heard the left defending a “Christian” religion.

IMO, McCain should not have defended BHO at all. He did not need to defend in the Galyle Quinnell statement and he did not need to defend him as a good person who would appoint good judges if he were to be elected, as he did over the weekend.

In an interview with Hank Williams Jr. this morning, he was asked if he always supported McCain. Williams said he would have voted for McCain, but he did not support him until Sarah Palin was put on the ticket. We (on the right), do not support McCain, but we like Palin because she represents our conservative views. This is why there is such a great attack on Palin.

You have the audacity to complain about the public’s view of BHO (of which the McCain campaign has NO control), and yet you have no problem with the personal attacks on Palin and repeating the talking points of blogs like the Daily Kos.

One more thought, Schwamp wrote:

“Carolina,
I live near Raleigh and have been afraid to put out an Obama sign - there are a lot of McCain signs. Your post has given me some encouragement to try it.

I just returned from a driving trip that covered 3 states and about 800 miles. About 2/3rds of the trip was cross-country, through small towns. I saw one BHO yard sign and a whole lot of McCain/Palin signs. I guess the rest of the people were afraid to put there BHO signs out, because those mean old bible totin and gun totin right wing fanatics might get them.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 14, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #266782

Lee

This is all more of exactly what I am talking about in the red column, a play for the reenforcement of pure blind prejudice. There are no issues here. Only the exact sort of “narrow” “fear mongering” the left accuses the right of.

Despite your attempts to downplay the transparency of this situation, it still is what it is. As I have said before if McCain had denounced such actions immediately instead of letting them grow he could deny responsibility with some credibility. Unfortunately for him that is not the case. Perceptions are as they seem. The GOP has made the art of fear and hate mongering a staple in its book of tactics. They use it indirectly via subtle implication in such a way that can apply a degree of denial after the fact. People are not stupid they are able to see through the facade. The GOP simply has gone to that well one too many times. Reasonable people with no particular need or wishes to be led will see it for what it is. What can possibly be more bigoted than efforts to grow bigotry. In this instance it is those on the right who are propagating the message meant to sow seeds of doubt.

You are correct in that these sort of tactics serve no real useful purpose with regards to ending the biases which divide us as people. Ignoring it and allowing it to serve its purpose is imo just as irresponsible as those preying on a group of people in efforts to propagate unnecessary, untruthful fears and doubt to serve an agenda.

Posted by: RickIL at October 14, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #266787

I’ve been thinking about that video that Lee linked to, and a few questions come to mind…who labeled those people in the streets as ‘liberal’?…they were New Yorkers, they would likely have demonstrated the same way if it had been a march of Obama backers…it is, after all, a pretty rude city…no one was hurt and no rocks were thrown…hmmm…yep, just New York…If it is really a ‘liberal’ stronghold, why were mccain people marching there?…do you think it might have been to make a video showing how ugly ‘liberals’ can be?…did mccain plant a few of those ‘finger wavers’ in order for it to look worse than it actually was?

I end up with a lot of unanswered questions, but one thing for sure…no one can blame me for wondering about the mccain campaign motives…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Comment #266788

Oldguy:

Where is your head at when you say the name Hussein identifies a religion? What religion? Christian? Because that’s what he is. Why wouldn’t we defend his religion?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 14, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #266789

Mr. Obvious says:

Of course there is no racism involved in this campaign. No one admits to it, therefore it must not exist. I actually have never met a racist, because no one admits to being one. If I happen to bring a toy monkey to a McCain rally and put an Obama sticker on it, and then when spotted on camera, remove the sticker and hand the monkey to a kid, it is clear I am only exercising my 1st amendment rights and being a generous gift giver. Nope, no racism here. No encouragement intended.

Also one little physics note: Big fires are hard to put out, but strictly speaking starting a fire is usually harder than putting one out.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 14, 2008 10:47 AM
Comment #266790
Christopher Hitchens is a rabid evangelical atheist, an Ayn Rand Republican, who only supports Republicans on philosophical grounds, not out of an adherance to any religious ideals.
Want to end this cycle of paranoia?

Ditch the bigotry.

Ha! You can start with your own bigotry first, Lee Jamison, and then you can work your way towards those scary freaks at the McCain-Palin hate rallies yelling “Kill Him!” and “Off With His Head!” and “Traitor!” and “Terrorist!”, okay? Maybe you’ll eventually even get around to dressing down Sarah Palin for saying:
“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

“This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.”

And then maybe finally you can get around to the towering hypocrisy of John McCain, who hired Karl Rove’s posse to paint Obama as a terrorist because they did such a good job with smearing himself and his own dark skinned adopted daughter in 2000.

Honestly, some people don’t even see how bloody ironic their own statements are. Democrats don’t require people to stick to “an adherence to a religious ideal.” Anyone of any religious faith, as well as those without religious faith can be a Democrat. So for instance, Democrats can be Christian, like Barack Obama, or Agnostic, like myself, or even (Gasp!) Atheist like Christopher Hitchens.
Maybe that’s because unlike far too many Republicans, Democrats believe in sticking by the words of the Constitution:
“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 14, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #266791

Btw, I know Hitchens isn’t anything close to being a Democrat, but since he endorsed Obama, he is now an Honorary Democrat — at least for this election cycle. Personally, since he’s an “Ayn Rand Republican” I’m a bit surprised he didn’t endorse Bob Barr.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 14, 2008 11:26 AM
Comment #266794

VV,

FINALLY! Something to disagree with you about. You seem to think Barr is something besides a far right Republican. He just changed tickets because he couldn’t cut it on the one with mccain on it.

Of course I might be a little hard on him because I remember his rabidness with Bill Clinton…what an a**hole…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #266796

Oldguy:

Bringing up the name “Hussein” is not bringing up race. If anything, it is identifying BHO with a religion.

Hussein is not a Muslim name, it is an Arab name which means “Handsome One.” Bringing it up connects him with the Arab ethnic group, which most certainly is racial. Only in the minds of those too ignorant to separate being Arab from being a Muslim does this connect him with a religion. Unfortunately, there are many that are that ignorant, and are further ignorant enough to connect being Muslim with being a terrorist, and the right-wing rhetoric plays to this ignorance and fear.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 14, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #266797

Marysdude

here’s a repost of Jim Ts link from Lees column. since we’re talking about a@#holes. here’s a few from the left side of the aisle. nothing but liberal understanding, and acceptance of different views here. poeple that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. lets see how many displays of the middle finger we can count.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

Posted by: dbs at October 14, 2008 12:40 PM
Comment #266798

dbs

That is the same video I was referring to, and that Lee posted here in 266776…you should catch up before chipping in. My answer to it remains the same.

Now it is your and Lee’s turn:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-palin-rallies-the_n_134474.html

Nothing in Lee’s video even comes close to the hate and vilification you see in this one.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #266799

dbs,

PS: My answer to Lee’s 266776 is at 266787, if you are interested in finding out what you were talking about…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #266802

DBS re: the Youtube video you link to

You are comparing the response to a political march thru what appears to be a street fair (there were no other political banners, ads, buttons or other items in sight)
to a campaign rally where the actual candidates engage in lies, slander and hate-speech?
comeon
Besides this very well could have been a set up (gee, why is there a video camera and all the other work that went with it?)
The political march by McCain supporters may have been thru what? something that would have been inappropriate for a political march?
Thru an area that is (for some reason) downright (and knowingly) hostile to McCain for some reason?
Who know WHY the people responded as they did? nor do we know who or what they represent do we?
The comments were all anti-McCain, NOT pro-Obama, nor pro democrat, in fact I would not be suprized if that was an anti-war rally or fair — in which case it is not suprizing to see such a hostile response to the “old warrior”.
and to compare getting flipped off with the McCain’s crowd of wanting to hang Obama, “kill him” and other violent responses that are actually ENCOURAGED by the campaign!!
Get real.
The response you see is more directly a response to the dispicable way McCain has been running HIS campaign

Posted by: Russ at October 14, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #266803

Veritas,

Had I not inserted the word “rabid” I would have deserved none of that but, you’re right, I should not have used that adjective. The rest of the statement is simply true. Hitchens is one of the several authors who recently has made a lot of money hawking atheism in books, hence, he is an “evangelical” atheist.

I have read quite a bit of his writing on politics and you wouldn’t like it. Be careful with whom you crawl into bed. Most of these books that make money do so because they are being bought by Christians or other forms of believer who simply want to know what these authors don’t believe in. I respect Hitchens as a thinker (and Dawkins as well) but I disagree with him on things religious.

If you’d like to argue with me on that I’d love it! (I can feel the WatchBlog manager cringing right now…)

As to the no religious test thing, it certainly didn’t help a judicial nominee’s chances when the Senate was in the hands of Democrats if the nominee was a Catholic, even if he was strongly supported by minorities in his home state. Maybe just not liking them was a better test.

But, rather than play tit for tat, let’s get back to the point. If you succeed at conveying an image of conservatives as monsters, as Hitler succeeded, with his staged burning of the Bundestag, at so portraying Jews, the next chess moves you’ve backed yourselves into are truly odious. You won’t be able to permit the equal participation of morally and intellectually unfit populations in the political process They might pollute the proper running of society.

This demonization of conservatives can’t end well. It does not foster a better society.

Liberals are not better people than conservatives, no matter how you stitch isolated incidents together to try to make it so.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #266805

dude

Great link! That video makes the NY march look like a peace rally in comparison. I am not so foolish as to not believe that there exists prejudice on both sides of the aisles. While those NY marchers certainly have every right to organize, I have to wonder if this event was not set up with the intent to deliberately attract such commotion. Personally I thought the reactions at the NY march were extreme and uncalled for. It caused me to think about what might provoke such anger. To be honest I think it says that the majority of people in that part of NY city are simply disgusted with republican policy. And then of course there is the group mentality that tends to snow ball these types of things. Of course we don’t get to see the entirety of the march. Could it be that one or more of the marchers over reacted to someone on the sidelines causing the outrage to take off? We really don’t know. We only get to see an obviously select sampling of a portion of the march.

Posted by: RickIL at October 14, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #266806

>Liberals are not better people than conservatives, no matter how you stitch isolated incidents together to try to make it so.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 01:18 PM

Lee,

Okay…you’ve got it. We, on the left, are no better than those on the right (right now we are acting better, but that begs the question). Let’s put it all aside and be normal political beasts. Will you attempt to stop those on the right from demonizing those who don’t believe we should be in that stupidity in Iraq? Will you stop looking down your nose at those who think the ‘free market’ got us into this economic mess, and try a little discourse? Will you admit that mccain has handled this campaign in ways that foster hate and racism? If you’ll do that last part I will try to convince my side that mccain is not too old, cantankerous, and dishonorable for the job to which he aspires and that Palin will make a FINE veep…NOT! I realized I can’t do it…keep your admissions, I can’t give that much up.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #266809

Lee:
You wrote
But, rather than play tit for tat, let’s get back to the point. If you succeed at conveying an image of conservatives as monsters, as Hitler succeeded, with his staged burning of the Bundestag, at so portraying Jews, the next chess moves you’ve backed yourselves into are truly odious. You won’t be able to permit the equal participation of morally and intellectually unfit populations in the political process They might pollute the proper running of society.
What?
there is no one DEAMONIZING the right — there IS a valid observation being made of the ACTIONS of those on the right at their campaign rallys?
It is THEIR OWN behaviour that is creating any impressions made.
The deamonizing you so complain about is the Campaign tactic of the McCain/Palin duo!
Get THEM to stop deamonizing their opponents (and anyone else who disagrees with them)
The left does not and has not
Challanged McCain’s loyalty, nor love of country
Can you say the same for McCain himself? NO.
Can you say the same for Palin herself? NO.
take responsiblity eh? after all the RIGHT LOVES to be the party of INDIVIDUAL responsiblity.

Posted by: Russ at October 14, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #266811

I have been out of town for a few days and have been a bit out of the loop. Though I have to weigh in on this crap that is going down at GOP rallies. While I in no way think that these knuckle-dragging simps are representative of conservatives or Republicans there has been a disturbing trend of people who seem to be motivated by fear and hatred who have been yelling violent and racist things at McCain/Palin rallies. I have already given kudos to McCain, on another post, for trying to tamp this down but the fact that it is happening is partly his fault. He is so desperate to win that he is in the “say anything - do anything” mode in order to make up ground as his campaign starts to circle the drain. When your leader appears angry and desperate it inspires the same behavior in the followers. You can’t just go around calling someone an American hating terrorist and expect nothing to come of it. Granted, the only people dumb enough to listen to this garbage are the aforementioned knuckle-dragging simps no one else cares or believes this crap as the ever widening polls indicate.

I am not saying that there aren’t an equal number of morons supporting Obama/Biden but they aren’t out there calling for McCain to be beheaded (which I believe is a federal crime to threaten the life of an elected official as Hunter S. Thompson once found out).

The one thing I did hear while I was away was that Sarah Palin’s house was built for free by Todd’s “friends” who turned out to be the same people who built the multi-million dollar sports center and who also helped build her buddy, Ted Steven’s house. Good thing she is above the usual corruption. I wish I had friends like that. This George Bush in drag has certainly learned the way of cronyism to such an extent that would make Bush blush. Not only did she get a 3,400 sq. ft. house built for free by the same group she awarded a multi-million dollar contract to build the sports complex but the same group also sponsored Todd Palin’s snow machine racing team. In addition, the architect hired to design the complex is the son of a local GOP chairman. Nice incestuous little nest they have going on in Alaska. Good thing Palin was fully vetted before slapping her name on all of those bumper stickers.

Posted by: tcsned at October 14, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #266813

Lee Jamison-
Nobody asks Obama about McCain being a Manchurian candidate, and if somebody did, Obama would probably shut them down. The only associations he’s brought up is McCain’s substantiated relationship with Keating, during which Keating did many favors for McCain and McCain did many in return, not to mention the relationships between McCain and his lobbyists advisors, both of which can be backed, and neither of which constitutes mere acquaintance on his part.

The negatives Obama uses are substantive and germane to the issues people care about.

Meanwhile, you have campaign leaders in McCain’s campaign, not mere audience members alone, making many of these offensive comments, making a point of mentioning his middle name, etc.. McCain’s looking the other way as his running mate and campaign staff throw this poo through the cage bars at the Democrats, and claiming to be angry about it and committed to stopping it.

Standard Karl Rove plausible deniability.

I don’t think you folks are trying to get him killed. What I think is that you’ve made winning such a priority that stirring up this crap seems justified. Unfortunately, the mix of this toxic soup of rumors is creating something worse than any one accusation by itself, and your campaign is too chickens*** to firmly put a stop to it. You don’t want to lose those voters. Unfortunately, your people have been forced into a balancing act by your own cleverness: You have to condemn this hate-speech to avoid losing those it would offend, but you can’t be too strong or effective in this condemnation, lest you lose the people who actually believe these lies.

The question becomes plain: is their any moderate course left for the McCain Campaign toward victory? No. They flirted too much with the radicals and the moderates got scared off.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #266814

It’s amazing after all the hate that’s been stirred up against George Bush over the last eight years that the Democrats are actually complaining about the political tone all of a sudden. Does anybody remember all the talk in the media about how Michael Moore’s rhetoric and that film Death of a President were the result of Democratic politicians not reigning in their insults. I sure dont’.

This complaining about McCain and Palin looks like to me like something straight out of a can. A strategy, really, to shut down any criticism of their candidate. I understand why it’s done. It may be an effective way of turning the tables and deflecting issues that might otherwise hurt Obama politically. So if it’s just politics, fine. But if you serious believe this stuff and are sincere about it, then the word is hypocrisy.

Posted by: Liam at October 14, 2008 2:33 PM
Comment #266815

Stephen,

Prove to me those “knuckle-dragging simps” as tscned calls them, are not plants. How many does it take to get on the news? Half a dozen, maybe? That and a few friendly editors in three or four offices in this country and a conspiracy of fewer than ten people could paint the whole Republican Party as a group of, well, tscned said it for me.

That’s the trouble with this farce of a story. There is no story there, just the momentum of liberal outrage that nobody sees fit to shoot conservatives when they show up in the streets.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 14, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #266816

“A strategy, really, to shut down any criticism of their candidate”

BINGO!!!

And hypocrisy is the perfect word, that is why it is wrong to label all liberals as unpatriotic but perfectly fine to label all Republicans as racists or facists.
Two different sets of rules, so its “different” when it comes from the left. You should know that by now Liam.

Posted by: kctim at October 14, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #266820

As someone planter firmly in the middle of the political spectrum, there are two reasons I will not vote for McCain:

1) Palin is a hack and as an American I would be embarrassed to have her as a VP and outright scared if she ever became President. This also shows a complete lack of executive decision making on McCain’s part.
2)I am completely disgusted by the campaign McCain is running; it is Willy Horton II, only worse. It play to Americans ingnorance and fear; it is not leadership.

I will be voting for Obama but it is more of a vote against McCain and Palin than an endorsement of Obama.

DCC

Posted by: dcc at October 14, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #266822

Liam,
When the right raises issues about Barack being inexperienced, they raise a valid point. or comb through his voting records or question the democratic philosophy of bigger government etc.
These are issues people need to know about.
But paling around with terrorists?, a muslim? (not that there is anything wrong with that)
come’on, you know what people are trying to do here. why are politicans acting so niave.
They know what they’re doing, they’re pitting Americans against each other and regardless who wins the elections, it will be another 4 years of bitter bitter partisanship and everyone loses.

Posted by: Paul at October 14, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #266824

kctim and Liam -

Has there been anyone at an Obama rally calling McCain a ‘terrorist’? How about ‘kill him’? How about some handing out the equivalents of stuffed monkeys and Aunt-Jemima-style waffle boxes, obviously degrading references to race?

What if their situations were reversed? What would the Republicans be doing if Obama had a daughter who was pregnant, unmarried, and whose prospective husband just quit high school to get a job? Would the Republicans be leaving that alone as the Obama camp is doing for Palin and family?

No, you know better than that! The Republicans would be ALL OVER the Democrats about it and you know it.

One of McCain’s former guards said McCain was never tortured, that his lasting injuries were from the crash. We DO know that McCain cooperated with the enemy by giving recorded confessions…strictly against the UCMJ (which calls such an action “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”). Has the Obama camp attacked him on that? No…but IF THE SITUATION WERE REVERSED, would the Republicans be so considerate?

I think you know better than that.

If Obama’s wife had been addicted to drugs and used her charity to wrongfully acquire more drugs, would the Republicans leave it alone?

I think you know better than that.

IN EACH CASE LISTED ABOVE, except for a few blogs and pundits, the Democrats have left McCain and Palin alone.

So don’t give us your ‘double-standard’ complaint - all you accomplish by doing so is to further illustrate the hypocrisy of those making such complaints about the Obama campaign.

A recent study showed that nearly 100% of McCain’s television ads were negative attacks on Obama. The same study showed that about 34% of Obama’s ads were similarly negative towards McCain. Ah, but to listen to the two of you, one would think (like Ms. McCain said) that Obama’s campaign is the dirtiest in history.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 14, 2008 4:08 PM
Comment #266827

Liam - Do you see people at Obama rallies shouting death to Bush? Granted there are plenty of Bush haters out there but is there hatred based on his race, his ethnicity, or his religion? Or is it based on his actions and inactions as president?

Let’s face it, by any metric Bush has been a miserable failure as an executive. The anger at him is not necessarily misplaced. There is a difference between being angry at a person’s actions and a person’s ethnicity or race.

A more fair comparison is to see how the people at Dem rallies treat McCain and Palin. I was at a large fundraiser this past weekend and no one was chanting “Death to McCain!” or Bomb the Hockey Mom!” It was a pretty upbeat. Granted being 10 points up in the polls makes for a lot happier environment than the McCain/Palin rallies are experiencing.

Posted by: tcsned at October 14, 2008 4:17 PM
Comment #266831

Glenn
You are doing nothing but lumping McCain in with the actions of some in hopes of getting some votes.

“Each case above” is nothing and that is the only reason they are being left alone by everybody except the conspiracy nuts.
There is no proof showing McCain organized or supports the chants or infantile actions of some in attendance.
It is only your partisan and unjustified opinion that the right would be worse on Obama’s kid in that situation.
McCain has stated he was not able to hold out under torture and if The Obama was that honest, there wouldn’t be so many unanswered questions leading to all this.
And I have no idea what the Republicans would do if it was The Obama’s wife and neither do you. Your assumption of what they would do is just partisan rhetoric.

“So don’t give us your ‘double-standard’ complaint “

Don’t worry, I know its all about party with you guys so what would be the point. You’re not interested in facts.

Posted by: kctim at October 14, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #266834

Marysdude

you should re read my post. i stated that link was a repost. nice try though. i still say it shows the hypocracy liberalism first hand. who are the real haters ?

Posted by: dbs at October 14, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #266835

russ

“Besides this very well could have been a set up”

of course it was russ……LOL!!!!

Posted by: dbs at October 14, 2008 5:21 PM
Comment #266844

>you should re read my post. i stated that link was a repost. nice try though. i still say it shows the hypocracy liberalism first hand. who are the real haters ?
Posted by: dbs at October 14, 2008 05:16 PM

dbs,

Are you still here talking about that same subject? You had missed the earlier conversation between myself and Lee on this subject. You tried to insert thoughts of your own that were out of context. Now, you are doing it again…if you want to discuss this issue, please read the thread, think about what has been said, watch the videos, and come on back. Until you’ve done that, please…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 14, 2008 7:25 PM
Comment #266875

Lee:

Veritas,

Had I not inserted the word “rabid” I would have deserved none of that but, you’re right, I should not have used that adjective. The rest of the statement is simply true. Hitchens is one of the several authors who recently has made a lot of money hawking atheism in books, hence, he is an “evangelical” atheist.

No it’s not just the adjective, you deserved everything I said to you in my last post because you revealed you own deep-seated bigotry while trying to chastise everyone else for being disgusted by the mob mentality and flames of potential violence that McCain’s campaign has intentionally fanned because they cannot talk about actual issues if they want to win this election.
Really, what the hell does Hitchens atheism have to do with the price of eggs? Hitchens was a stauch Republican, who just endorsed Obama — not for religious or atheistic reasons — but obviously thinks that McCain and Palin are a couple of bad jokes who would be extremely dangerous people to hand power over to, and who are currently covering the GOP in shame.

No, my point remains: YOU were the one to bring up Hitchens atheism — as though his viewpoint must have something to do with why he can’t possibly bring himself to vote the Republican ticket this time around after defending them at every turn for years on end. But in fact, Hitchens lack of religious belief means nothing at all in this context. But YOU felt the need to bring into the argument because of your own bigotry against atheists:

Christopher Hitchens is a rabid evangelical atheist, an Ayn Rand Republican, who only supports Republicans on philosophical grounds, not out of an adherance to any religious ideals.

You obviously said this because you thought it would totally discredit him. As though you couldn’t possibly think of anything worse to say about him.
But guess what? To most Democrats Hitchens atheism happens to be neither here nor there. The vast majority of us honestly don’t give a rats ass whether people adhere to religious ideals when it comes to politics and why they choose who they’ll be voting for. That’s because we view religion as a personal matter that has no place in government, while political viewpoints and advocacy are often an extremely public matter — most especially when someone is constantly in the media eye the way that Hitchens is.

I have read quite a bit of his writing on politics and you wouldn’t like it.

I do quite a bit of reading myself, and I’m definitely a political junkie, so I’m well acquainted with Hitchens (who has been around for many years) and his political viewpoints. And no, I don’t like him. In fact, I think he sounds like a complete neocon jackass most of the time.

Be careful with whom you crawl into bed.

You should be saying that to Hitchens, rather than to Democrats. Because no one on our side of the aisle asked him endorse Obama. It seems he’s done this all by himself.

Most of these books that make money do so because they are being bought by Christians or other forms of believer who simply want to know what these authors don’t believe in.

Like I care who buys Hitchens books?

I respect Hitchens as a thinker (and Dawkins as well) but I disagree with him on things religious.

Again who cares? I myself disagree with Obama since I’m agnostic, but I’m still out there working my ass off to get him elected.

If you’d like to argue with me on that I’d love it! (I can feel the WatchBlog manager cringing right now…)

The manager is not the only one cringing. Personally I don’t see the point.

As to the no religious test thing, it certainly didn’t help a judicial nominee’s chances when the Senate was in the hands of Democrats if the nominee was a Catholic, even if he was strongly supported by minorities in his home state. Maybe just not liking them was a better test.

People have twisted and subverted all kinds of things, including our Constitution and secular government, for religious reasons — and unfortunately, they always have.

If you succeed at conveying an image of conservatives as monsters, as Hitler succeeded, with his staged burning of the Bundestag, at so portraying Jews, the next chess moves you’ve backed yourselves into are truly odious.

Bullsh*t. You’ve got people attending McCain-Palin rallies speaking and acting like KKKlansmen and Nazi’s in YOUR party. That means it’s job of everyone who calls themselves a Republican to have those people stop conveying that message to the rest of the country. You got that, Lee? It’s YOUR job to denounce this, not ours. We’re just talking about this parade of ignorance and hate because it’s goosestepping right by us — and it’s as scary as hell.

You won’t be able to permit the equal participation of morally and intellectually unfit populations in the political process They might pollute the proper running of society.

Quit trying to lecture US. Time to start worrying about what is frighteningly and horribly wrong with YOUR PARTY — and DO something about it.

This demonization of conservatives can’t end well. It does not foster a better society.

Neither did the deaths of JFK, and RFK, and MLK. When people in YOUR PARTY are shouting “Kill Him!” it’s time for Republicans to step up, do the right thing, and try their damnedest to stop another murder of your party’s political opponents.

Liberals are not better people than conservatives,

Personally, I think we must be. After all, our candidate has run a clean respectful campaign, and we don’t go to our political rallies to hate Republicans and shout out vile threats and epithets. We go to them because we really like our candidate, and we think he’s going to make a great president.

no matter how you stitch isolated incidents together to try to make it so.

If Obama is killed by some right wing nutjob, Democrats will know it’s because your candidate and his running mate painted Obama as a terrorist, fanned the flames of hate and intolerance, and then stood back and did nothing. And it will also be on the heads of each and every Republican who didn’t speak out when they had the chance to try to reduce the level of hate-filled insanity that has always preceded a political assassination.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 15, 2008 2:01 AM
Comment #266883

VV,

Damn…wish I’d said that…how right you are…at every step…every salient point.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 6:39 AM
Comment #266890

VV

Great retort above. The motives of some of those posting from the right in this thread has been centered around avoiding accountability for their party. I think you did well pointing out where it belongs. Your post made me remember why it is my policy never to anger an intelligent woman. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at October 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Comment #266894

Marysdude

didn’t like my response eh ? BTW, i didn’t know you were the blog police. thanks for the advice though. far be it from me to adress a superior being such as yourself. hey maybe those were just rude new yorkers, but i doubt it. more like rude new york liberals, oh and angry. there, now i’m done sorry to waste your valuable time sir.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #266897

vv

“Neither did the deaths of JFK, and RFK, and MLK. When people in YOUR PARTY are shouting “Kill Him!” it’s time for Republicans to step up, do the right thing, and try their damnedest to stop another murder of your party’s political opponents.”

what is this supposed to mean ? now who’s making rabid accusations. are you implying these three were killed by republicans, and or conservatives ? if not what was your point. i’ve listened to you whine constantly about the evil hateful republicans. it’s about time you took a good look in the mirror. BTW not much truth in most of what you say, maybe a good time to rethink that screen name.

“all, our candidate has run a clean respectful campaign,”

yep, time to rethink that sreen name.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 9:32 AM
Comment #266898

RickIL


“Great retort above. The motives of some of those posting from the right in this thread has been centered around avoiding accountability for their party.”


why should i be held accountable for the rantings of some nutjob, who happened to be at a mc cain rally ? i haven’t seen much accountability for taking responsibility for the crooks, and nutjobs in your own party. clean your own house first. if it wasn’t for a complete disregard for election law in new jersey frank laughtenberg would not be a new jersey senator right now. please stop the nonsense, and at least own up to your own cheats, crooks.

“Your post made me remember why it is my policy never to anger an intelligent woman.”

no comment.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #266910

VV,
“You obviously said this because you thought it would totally discredit him. As though you couldn’t possibly think of anything worse to say about him.”

You must be reading someone else’s mind, Veritas. I said it to emphasise two things. One, Hitchens has had a place in the party based on PHILOSOPHY not based on the party’s base. If he chooses to abandon his philosophy based on his religion that is up to him. Second, I personally don’t care about his atheism (save that it seems so peculiarly, and paradoxically, fervent) except that I find atheists to be a lot of fun to get into deep discussions with. Honest, I’ve never met an atheist (who knew what he was talking about) I didn’t like.

“You got that, Lee? It’s YOUR job to denounce this, not ours. We’re just talking about this parade of ignorance and hate because it’s goosestepping right by us — and it’s as scary as hell.”

Really? You’re pretty breathless at denouncing what remain isolated incidents, cherry-picked to give you a reason to have Quanell X march around with armed hoodlums in quiet towns, talking about not bringing a “…butter knife to a gunfight”. That is a thing you still seem to have no discomfort with yet.

Any Democrat condemnation of such intimidations? Chirp…. chirp…

It is true, to the extent these incidents reflect real passions on the part of conservatives or any movement to act, (which of course they don’t appear to, because they are single incidents at separate events conveniently noted by a partizan press) then they must be clamped down on as McCain did in the video shown above.

Again, is there more violence among liberal constituencies or conservative constiuencies. Sorry, VV, it is liberals. Who has more to fear from that violence? Sorry again, LIBERALS. When I hear of people who burned to death in their own homes because they couldn’t get past the bars intended to protect them from violence, I could bet money every time they are represented by a Democrat.

How sad is it, in the face of that, you cower in fear at the sight of some old conservative saying he’s mad?

“Neither did the deaths of JFK, and RFK, and MLK. When people in YOUR PARTY are shouting “Kill Him!”

JFK was killed by a deranged, disappointed communist. RFK was killed by a dereanged, disappointed Arab, and MLK? Well, gee, this quote from Jesse Jackson in the Wikipedia article is really interesting-
The fact is there were saboteurs to disrupt the march. And within our own organization, we found a very key person who was on the government payroll. So infiltration within, saboteurs from without and the press attacks. …I will never believe that James Earl Ray had the motive, the money and the mobility to have done it himself. Our government was very involved in setting the stage for and I think the escape route for James Earl Ray.[135]

Who ran the government in March of 1968, VV?

So, VV, if, instead, he is killed by some LEFT WING nut job or indefinite conspiracy, especially after such a ridiculously flimsy panic has been so artificially ginned up, what then?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 15, 2008 11:25 AM
Comment #266911

dbs

i haven’t seen much accountability for taking responsibility for the crooks, and nutjobs in your own party.

The crooks and nut jobs in our party are not planting seeds that bear the fruit of hate filled bigotry into this election. I am more than happy to tune out, ignore and condemn any nut job that is over the top with their approach. Be that a nut job of any political affiliation. I simply see no value in attempts of anyone to sway votes by way of false characterization via false notions of doubt and fear.

Posted by: RickIL at October 15, 2008 11:26 AM
Comment #266916

RickIL,

janedoe explained to me that it wears you out to talk to trolls. She thinks we get tired and frustrated to the point we say something the blog-boss finds offensive, and we get kicked off. How better for someone with little or no valid argument to win one? Perhaps we should limit our discussions to those we know to be serious?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #266917
Again, is there more violence among liberal constituencies or conservative constiuencies. Sorry, VV, it is liberals. Who has more to fear from that violence? Sorry again, LIBERALS. When I hear of people who burned to death in their own homes because they couldn’t get past the bars intended to protect them from violence, I could bet money every time they are represented by a Democrat.

I would really like to see where you get this information, the source. Otherwise this is just bullshit.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 15, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #266923

Marysdude

#266916 nice remark.

how is my point irrelevent. you have chosen to make a few isolated incidents at mc cain rallies out to be more than they are, which is a few isolated incidents. there are wackos and bomb throwers on both sides of the aisle. we can argue the media gives more coverage to those at mc cain rallies, but i won’t. the point is most of these hate mongers are like children throwing a fit. if you acknowlege them, you give them power. when my kids were growing up i ignored the fits and they usually stopped as quickly as they started. the same goes with these morons who want thier 10 seconds of fame. it’s a waste of time to give the acknowlegement they want. have them removed, and move on.

why should i, or john mc cain be ashamed of these people ? they don’t represent most republicans, myself included. do the rude people in those crowds represent you ? i’m guessing not. why then are these isolated incidents any different ?

IMO someone who truely intends to do harm to one candidate or another is not going to go on TV, they’re are going to plan thier terror. a few idiots on TV aren’t going to change the behavior of the average person. those that are, were already unstable to begin with.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #266925

kctim -

Perhaps you should learn a little about LEADERSHIP. When a leader obviously knows of criminal behavior (and shouting ‘kill him’ is a crime) within a group that he is leading, if he does nothing to stop it, then he IS tacitly endorsing it.

By your logic, if a thousand attendees at a Republican rally began chanting ‘kill him’ (in obvious reference to Obama), if McCain did nothing, then it shouldn’t reflect badly on McCain.

Sorry, guy, but leadership doesn’t work that way. It’s the same thing as on a ship - if a captain knows his sailors are out making trouble in public, he knows he’d better do something about it. If the captain does nothing about it even after repeated public occurrences of the same trouble, then that captain will most likely soon be relieved of his command by his superiors. Why? By NOT doing anything about bad public behavior by part of his crew, he is tacitly ENDORSING bad public behavior by that part of his crew…and everyone in the local community suffering from his crew’s behavior knows it.

If you’ve got any real leadership experience in the military, you know this to be true. It’s all part of the honor and courage and integrity to which we in the military are supposed to adhere.

McCain knew this, and that was why he (to his credit) rebuked that woman at the Republican rally…and to the shame of any retired military at the rally, McCain was booed for doing so.

He needs to train his VP candidate of her responsibility as a leader as well. I just hope that, if he’s elected, he’s able to properly train her before his health fails.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #266931

Glenn

in one video i see a few ignorant people responding to the question whether obama is a terrorist. i wonder how many respondants with reasonable answers were edited out to come up with this group ? my guess is i could go to an obama rally and cherry pick the same type of ignorant responses, and ignore the more well thought out ones.

as far as ayers goes, i think obamas affiliation with him is a serious concern, not because i think he ( obama ) is a terrorist, but because it shows a lack of judgement. the ayers thing IMO is more than just,” i’ve talked to him once or twice in the neighborhood. the man may be a tenured professor, but to this day will not renounce his actions, and never spent a day in prison, and should have for a long time.

the same could be said about rev. wright. while we’ve only seen the one tape. my guess is this type hate was repeated over years numerous times, and was not an isolated incident. the man is who he is and didn’t just change over night when obama decided to run for pres. this would mean his wife and children were exposed to this on other occasions over the years. again this shows IMO, a lack of good judgement.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #266932

And kctim -

Next time you watch conservatives on the tube or hear them on the radio sounding off as to what they wish would happen to Obama, bear this in mind:

“Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.” - Albert Einstein

And the Republican attendee yells, “kill him”!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #266937

glenn

“And the Republican attendee yells, “kill him”!”

how many of these incidents are there ? 1,2, less than 10, i’m asking because i don’t know.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #266938

dbs -

On Obama’s “lack of judgment”. How much do you really know about Ayers? This is from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Palin didn’t name any newspapers or magazines that shaped her view of the world. On Saturday, she cited a New York Times story that detailed Obama’s relationship with Ayers.

Summing up its findings, the Times wrote: “A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called ‘somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.’”

So, dbs - is Ayers really, truly that terrible a person? Unlike most who have served time in prison, the guy made something of himself after he got out of prison! He’s a doggone professor at a highly-respected major university…yet all the Republicans want to say is, “Ayers is a terrorist!”

Are you REALLY so all worked up about Ayers that you can’t do a bit of research to see if he has been a good American citizen since he got out of jail? Or are you one of those who believes that it’s impossible for an ex-con to be a good American?

And if you want to bring up Wright, hey - we can do that! I’ll bring up the ‘reverends’ Hagee and Parsley…whose extremist views got only a fraction of the airtime Wright’s one tirade did. Sorry, dbs, but if you bring up Wright, you’re bringing (in a literary sense) a knife to a gunfight.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #266940

dbs -

Two. One last week, one yesterday…both at Palin rallies, with no response whatsoever from Palin. Also, many instances of ‘terrorist!’ accusations against Obama at GOP rallies.

How many at Dem rallies? Zero.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #266952

>but to this day will not renounce his actions,

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 01:41 PM

dbs,

I looked for the video, but could not find it…I have seen Ayers say he was sorry for being involved in the violence…what he says is that they did not go far enough with ‘war protesting’, because it did not stop the war early enough…

janedoe,

I swore I would not be baited again…I’m incorrigible…lol

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #266953

Marysdude

i’ve ignored these as long as i can.

“janedoe,

I swore I would not be baited again…I’m incorrigible…lol”

i guess i am too, but at least if i have somthing to say to, or about someone i say it to them directly. i don’t feel the need to look to others for support when i’m comfortable with what i have to say. if you feel responding to me is unbefitting a man of your stature, then please don’t. you only waste my time and yours.

Posted by: dbs at October 15, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #266955

dude

janedoe explained to me that it wears you out to talk to trolls. She thinks we get tired and frustrated to the point we say something the blog-boss finds offensive, and we get kicked off. How better for someone with little or no valid argument to win one? Perhaps we should limit our discussions to those we know to be serious?

Jane has a point. I have come close a few times to going over the edge. Generally I don’t get too excited by those with troll like behavior. Mostly I get bored with them and give up at some point realizing that there is no longer anyway to move forward. I have a hard time thinking clearly when I am angered so generally I just avoid responding at all when I am in that state. There are a few posters on this sight that I avoid knowing that any challenge will be fruitless. Sometimes I continue on regardless of that knowledge in an effort to understand things better. Writing about issues seems to help me understand them better than just reading about them. So for me it is sometimes more than just debate or trying to prove a point. I appreciate janedoes concern, but I think both of us are savvy and level headed enough to turn away before anger gets the best of us.

Posted by: RickIL at October 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #266959

Liam-
Bush started things out by applying brute force political pit-fighting to the recount to make sure, essentialy, that one was never completed. Which is not to say he necessary lost 2000, but he cared little for the opinions of those outside his party as to whether it looked like the i’s were dotted and the t’s crossed.

Generally, his people would not merely be passively secret, but actively, aggressively secretive, even going so far as to file suit to keep information about the administration’s dealings.

His tactics, and the tactics of the party’s he’s lead have been hostile to the Democrat, exploiting the fear of the terrorists to cast people who have no such sympathies as fellow travellers to the worst attack against America in sixty years. We weren’t thrilled to be blasted with that bulls***.

Let’s not forget, either, years of screw-ups and disasters. Democrats did less to unseat the Republicans than years worth of some of the most idiotic policy and incompetent personnel decisions in recent American history.

As for that film, Death of a President, It’s a lot less sensationalist than you might think listening to knee-jerk reactions to the film’s subject matter. Descriptions of the film find it to be fairly non-partisan.

More to the point, though, there’s a difference between a fictional assassation, fictional violence against a president, and real violence.

Are we shutting down criticism of our candidate? Doesn’t look like it. The trouble is, you folks are intentionally trying to portray Sen. Obama as a terrorist, a guy who pals around with terrorists, a Muslim sleeper agent, etc. You’re broadly outlining Obama as a bonafide enemy of the state. In this post-9/11 age, what do you think the eventual result of this will be?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #266961

Lee Jamison-
Plants? You prove they are. Don’t tell me to prove they’re not. You can’t prove a negative.

Even if everyone of them was a plant, there comes the question of those folks on stage. You have McCain people Calling him by all three names, calling on God to give McCain the win so that those other Gods aren’t glorified by Obama’s win.

You should really look at what your people have been saying. It’s some pretty outrageous stuff. Your people are making Obama out to be some kind of threat. How long can you do that before you encourage people to treat him as one?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment #266962

Glenn
Man, when you guys go off the cliff, you really make sure its the highest one around.

So now, not only did McCain know what some in the crowd was going to do, he also endorses it? In case you missed it, McCain stood up for Obama and you guys still refuse to give him an inch.
With two sets of standards, no wonder you guys are so confused and full of hate.

McCain did do something, but since he did not cut off the hand that feeds him and guarantee himself a lose, you guys are not satisfied.

The next time I watch anybody on the tube or hear one on the radio sounding off as to what they wish would happen to Obama or McCain, I will do the same thing I always do: realize it is one persons voice and in no way represents the majority of liberals, Democrats, Republicans or Conservatives.

btw: guns are useless without ammo.

Posted by: kctim at October 15, 2008 4:34 PM
Comment #266977

kctim,

It took him almost two weeks to say something to one woman. His running mate has still not got the word, and is encouraging that kind of response. How much credit is he supposed to get? He has been a politician on the national stage for almost thirty years…are you saying he was ignorant of how this thing would play out? If he is that ignorant, why would anyone want to vote for him?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #266981

Y’know, kctim, if there had only been ONE instance, you’d be right!

But there wasn’t just one instance, was there?

Were there repeated times that Obama was called ‘terrorist’? Hm? kctim, if some right-wing superpatriot takes it upon himself to “permanently remove the terrorist threat” thanks to McCain’s and Palin’s failure to tone down the rhetoric and crowd behavior, well, think back to what happened after the first Rodney King trial ended in dismissal. That, sir, would be NOTHING compared to what America will go through if something happens to Obama.

If McCain is half the patriot he thinks himself to be, then he should be well aware of the threat, and should be striving to calm people down rather than rile them up as hopes of his election fade.

Has McCain ignored such insults in the past? How about when (in reference to Hillary) an attendee to one of his rallies asked McCain directly, “What are you going to do about that b*tch?” Did McCain rebuke him? No. He simply answered the guy as if there had been no insult made towards his senatorial colleague.

ONLY THIS PAST WEEK did McCain ‘do something’…but until then, he did NOTHING.

kctim - if you love America, you yourself should open your eyes to the danger our whole country is in should someone take “kill him” as some kind of call to the greater good….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #266999

Glenn, everyone seems to forget that not only did he nonchalantly answer the guys’ question, he laughed about it first!!!
The man is a disgusting, despicable speciman who deserves nothing more than he has already taken from this country. And don’t give me any more crap about honoring him for his Hanoi Hilton stint. Lots more than him did just as much and got f***ing lots less when they got home….if they were so lucky.

Posted by: janedoe at October 15, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #267005

“So, dbs - is Ayers really, truly that terrible a person? Unlike most who have served time in prison, the guy made something of himself after he got out of prison!”

Glenn,
Ayers did not spend time in prison on any charges related to his association with the weatherman. He is not a convicted felon as far as I know.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 15, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #267008

The charges, relating to the Weathermen, were dropped because the prosecutor cheated, and it was so blatant that it was decided the case was not worth pursuing.

He redeemed himself, finished his education, became a professor and a respected member of the community.

What he has to do with this election is unclear to me, other than a smoke-screen set up by a desperate man in a desperate situation for desperate reasons.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 15, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #267012

dude, j2t2 -

Thanks for the correction. Man, I GOT to be more careful….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 15, 2008 11:21 PM
Comment #267036

Dude and RickIL,
Allow me to return the compliment in full. Seriously, right back at both of you. Your posts are why I continue to come to WB and why I don’t consider it a waste of precious hours of my life to read through all these blogposts. I mean that sincerely. If it wasn’t for you guys, and few others like phx8 and Glenn (both of whom are flat-out brilliant, IMO), and Jane (who is obviously a political junkie just like myself, and who never fails to make me laugh), and womanmarine (that kick-ass woman of very few words — every valuable one of which I consider relevant and wise), and Lawnboy (he of the long and illustrious history of always cutting right through the WB crap to strike at the meat of every argument), and our Eloquent Stephen of The Infinite Patience (who thankfully only seems to be a partially sainted-being), and yes, I have to admit it, David Remer, whose brilliant mind and writing skills I can’t help but admire and revere, even though he sticks the knife into a Democrat whenever he gets the chance. And even though he never reciprocated my respect or acknowledged my own unique ability to truthfully and honestly call things as I see them while engaging others in this blog. My real name is Adrienne — and I really always have thought that the Truth (Veritas) should Prevail (Vincit).

Lee:

You must be reading someone else’s mind, Veritas.

Nope. I was merely able read between your lines and note your bigotry against atheists — whilst you were attempting to disparage other people for trying to make their own points about the insidious destructiveness of bigotry that we feel we are witnessing with the progression of this political campaign.

I said it to emphasise two things.

I thought it a good demonstration of how your party has destructively elevated religious affiliation within politics. It seems that one can no longer be a good Republican these days without being a strong and vocal member of the Christian faith.

One, Hitchens has had a place in the party based on PHILOSOPHY not based on the party’s base.

Why does this matter? Only because people like you have made it so.

If he chooses to abandon his philosophy based on his religion that is up to him.

There it is in a nutshell. You’re projecting abandonment of the Republican Party onto Hitchens because of his atheism. Yet if you read what he said about McCain it really has nothing whatsoever to do with why he instead endorsed Obama. The sentence above only magnifies your own religious bigotry — and it has nothing at all to do with Hitchens.

Second I personally don’t care about his atheism (save that it seems so peculiarly, and paradoxically, fervent)

Again, all that you say only reinforces the idea that YES YOU DO CARE when it comes to who shares your political party with you. Obviously in your view — one which is clearly shared by a great many Republicans — in this day and age, one MUST be a Christian in order to also be a Republican. Otherwise, Hitchens atheism wouldn’t seem so “peculiar”, or “paradoxical”, or even “fervent.”

except that I find atheists to be a lot of fun to get into deep discussions with.

You’ll talk to them, sure. But they aren’t allowed to share your political party without automatically becoming “peculiar” and “paradoxical”, and of course, unusually “fervent.” Because in the Modern GOP, the only brand of fervency that can be allowed and officially sanctioned is Christian Fervency.

Honest, I’ve never met an atheist (who knew what he was talking about) I didn’t like.

But as soon as they try to join your party they’re bound to be “Peculiar, Paradoxical, and Fervent” — and this is because the dominant theme you’ve got going is that people like that really don’t belong in the GOP.
This is exactly why you may hear people using the term Christian Fascism when they refer to the GOP. Your own words and statements are incriminating you. And just like with denouncing hate-speech against Obama at GOP rallies, only YOU and other Republicans can change this by acknowledging, and then rejecting this idea. Or more correctly, this clearly destructive trend.

Really? You’re pretty breathless at denouncing what remain isolated incidents

Yeah, really, Lee. And don’t try to give me that stale, ineffectual old “only a few bad apples” argument. It didn’t work about institutionalized torture at Guantanamo, and doesn’t work right here and right now, either. If there were people, or even ONE person shouting “Kill Him” at Obama rallies about McCain and Palin, you should know that people like me, along with an enormous number of other Democrats, would be coming down on such unreasoning hatred like a frickin’ ton of bricks.
And that’s what YOU ALL need to do.
Now, I’m fully aware that people like yourselves don’t believe that Liberals and Progressives possess an ounce of morality, due to the fact that we frequently don’t share your religous beliefs, but you’re actually dead wrong about that. The average American citizen does NOT need religion in order to possess, or stand up and bravely defend, moral principles.

It’s our Words followed by our Actions that make a difference in this World we all share. That has always been the case, and it has nothing to do with our religion(s), or our lack thereof. And it never did. Moral people understand that it is not following a bunch of dogma that makes human beings do the right and good thing. It’s knowing in our hearts that our deeds are what really count — not to some disembodied godhead floating above all of our heads — but to each other. For each other.
All of us who share this spinning ball of mud and water and air and humming life that we call Earth, well, we just know this.

So, I am asking, right along with the rest of those who fully understand what actual morality means: Do the right thing Republicans. Take responsibility within your political party. Reach out and try to stop hatred and violence wherever you may find it. To do otherwise is simply wrong. You know it and I know it.
Everybody does. Because it’s a universal truth.

It is true, to the extent these incidents reflect real passions on the part of conservatives or any movement to act, (which of course they don’t appear to, because they are single incidents at separate events conveniently noted by a partizan press) then they must be clamped down on as McCain did in the video shown above.

Don’t give me that “McCain clamped down” crap, Lee. McCain’s campaign created an environment that produced escalating hatred and threats towards our Democratic candidate. The ball is in your court, Repulicans. Do something. Write to McCain and tell him you don’t approve of such tactics. Tell the media. Tell your friends and neighbors that this is complete horsesh*t. You don’t even
need to tell those of us on the left when you do so, if you don’t want to. But do the right thing regardless. Because it’s really important, and it really is the only moral thing to do.

Again, is there more violence among liberal constituencies or conservative constiuencies. Sorry, VV, it is liberals. Who has more to fear from that violence? Sorry again, LIBERALS. When I hear of people who burned to death in their own homes because they couldn’t get past the bars intended to protect them from violence, I could bet money every time they are represented by a Democrat.

Good heavens, this is some sick shit you’re trying to push as an argument here. And in fact, the way I see it, I shouldn’t even have felt the need to write most of what I’ve written in this post thus far. We’re Americans dammit! We’re supposed to be a civilized and educated people. Let’s act like it, okay?
If even one person is yelling out “Kill Him” and “Off With His Head” and “Traitor” and “Terrorist” about a Democratic Senator (or Republican Senator ) who has been chosen by at least half of this nation to become our next president, then the rest of us should be willing to take some responsibility in trying to stop that kind of sick and twisted Madness.

JFK was killed by a deranged, disappointed communist. RFK was killed by a dereanged, disappointed Arab, and MLK? Well, gee, this quote from Jesse Jackson in the Wikipedia article is really interesting- The fact is there were saboteurs to disrupt the march. And within our own organization, we found a very key person who was on the government payroll. So infiltration within, saboteurs from without and the press attacks. …I will never believe that James Earl Ray had the motive, the money and the mobility to have done it himself. Our government was very involved in setting the stage for and I think the escape route for James Earl Ray.[135]

Who ran the government in March of 1968, VV?

So, VV, if, instead, he is killed by some LEFT WING nut job or indefinite conspiracy, especially after such a ridiculously flimsy panic has been so artificially ginned up, what then?

Stop. Stop it. Stop trying to spin me a load of garbage. I’m not an idiot and neither are you, Lee Jamison. Even if you did write the above nonsense because you think you must be constantly on the defensive.
You and I are not on Fox News here. You and I are writing on a blog that only a handful of people even bother to read. Moreover, you and I are fellow citizens who merely stand on opposing sides of the political aisle.
Lee and other Republicans who are reading this thread: Please speak out. Try to stop the madness that is currently erupting out on the edge of your party.
This country cannot withstand another Democratic hero being gunned down in cold blood.
We just can’t.
Help us make sure that doesn’t happen.
Please.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 16, 2008 3:31 AM
Comment #267047

Dude
I wasn’t expecting you guys to give him credit for anything, but to be honest, after the last 8 years of listening to you guys talk, I was really hoping you guys meant it when you said you would not run a campaign as you believe Bush ran. Stating McCain actually supports or even organizes such displays or that all Republicans are racists, is not better than what you all call “Rovian” tactics.

Glenn
How many times has McCain or Palin called The Obama a terrorist? Hm? Now, how many times has McCain stood up and defended the Obama?
Neither candidate can control the extremes and saying McCain supports and encourages that behavior because he did not act as you think he should or as fast as you think he should have, is nothing but trying to scare up votes.

“That, sir, would be NOTHING compared to what America will go through if something happens to Obama.”

I agree, but to even suggest McCain will be responsible for that is beyond ridiculous.

You guys are still hung up on a possible voter calling hillary a btch? And you somehow believe McCain supports that view because he did not immediately “rebuke” the guy, but instead ignored the petty name calling and answered the question?
Should he have said something? I guess, for political purposes he should have and if it bugs people that he did not, then they should consider that when voting if they want. As for me personally, a politician not immediately “rebuking” an individual for calling another a btch or murderer is not what I base my vote on.

“kctim - if you love America, you yourself should open your eyes to the danger our whole country is in should someone take “kill him” as some kind of call to the greater good….”

Glenn, I am well aware of this danger but my eyes are not closed. You act as if McCain is encouraging and inciting such displays and that simply is not true. McCain said what he thinks of the Obama as a person and maybe you guys should stop thinking about votes for a second and accept it.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #267051

“If even one person is yelling out “Kill Him” and “Off With His Head” and “Traitor” and “Terrorist” about a Democratic Senator (or Republican Senator ) who has been chosen by at least half of this nation to become our next president, then the rest of us should be willing to take some responsibility in trying to stop that kind of sick and twisted Madness”

Unless it is Democrats yelling it out to a Republican President who was chosen by at least half of this nation to be our current President, right VV. Or is this another one of those things that are somehow “different” when Democrats do it?

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #267061

kctim

from what i have read here, it appears the dems feel they have been preordained to win this election, and they just might. the problem is if they don’t, we will once again hear the cries they were somehow cheated. all this talk of ” it’s already over ” is just the setup for thier righteous indignation if they should lose. we will then listen for the next four years how those awful republicans have stolen another election.

Posted by: dbs at October 16, 2008 12:35 PM
Comment #267065

kctim, dbs and the rest of you, if by some fluke, McCain should prevail in his quest, then you need to grab your ankles and beware!! McCain & Co. will not ask for your voting registrations before he puts it to you. You’re all going to be just as screwed as we would be. You know……the politics/bedfellow thing… ;)

Posted by: janedoe at October 16, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #267067

janedoe

i didn’t vote for mc cain in the primaries. if told me a year and a half ago that these two would be my choices i wouldn’t have believed you. IMO we are choosing between a silver tonque con artist, and a silver haired hot head. WHAT A CHOICE ! obama is way to far left for me, and i’ve never liked mc cain. unfortunately i’ll be stuck voting for what IMO is the lesser of two evils. YIPPEEEEE !!!

Posted by: dbs at October 16, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #267076

Relax janedoe, while I do believe it will be somewhat close, I don’t believe enough people are inspired enough to show up and vote for McCain, so you will get the huge intrusive govt you so desire.

And as far as “grabbing our ankles?” We are going to have to do that no matter who wins. We the People are screwed and that concerns me very much. Sadly though, too many people don’t see that and they don’t care about screwing other people as long as they get their way.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #267079

yep, I agree with you on that kctim…..the last 8 years are proof !!

Posted by: janedoe at October 16, 2008 2:26 PM
Comment #267080

Aw, janedoe, if you really agreed you would have said the last 16 years are proof. You still get an A for effort though.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #267085

Video example of the appalling parade of hate-filled racism and ignorance that I previously referred to.
Are any intelligent Republicans who are reading this blog going to keep trying to deny that this is a very serious problem, and one that all of you need to responsibly address within your party?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 16, 2008 3:23 PM
Comment #267090

VV
1st - The “parade” is a rally and the only chant I heard was “Drill Baby Drill.”
2nd - It was 4 or 5 single individuals who stated ignorant racist rhetoric. It is in no way fair to just assume the whole crowd holds the same beliefs.
3rd - That video is only proof that there are racists out there who will vote based on color and misinformation. But thanks to the Rev Wright, I guess we already knew that didn’t we.
4th - Funny how it doesn’t bother you that the writer spreads his own misinformation about Palin.

“are hip to Palin’s ties to the AIP and are horrified by it.”

By reading that, one could easily assume Palin is a current member and supports them. But in reality, it was her husband, not her, that was a member of that ragtag group years ago but no longer is.

5th - You guys are doing the exact same thing you have complained about being done to you for the past 5 years. You are taking the actions and opinions of some and labeling the entire Republican party as racists, the same way you were labeled as traitors. All just to discredit and silence in order to get votes.

Shameful, sad and very destructive to Obama’s stated goal of bringing this country back together as one.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #267129

>5th - You guys are doing the exact same thing you have complained about being done to you for the past 5 years. You are taking the actions and opinions of some and labeling the entire Republican party as racists.
Shameful, sad and very destructive to Obama’s stated goal of bringing this country back together as one.
Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 04:32 PM

kctim,

I think ‘O’ oughta act like Ghandi…pacify, pacify, pacify…he oughta admit that he’s a terrorist, cavorts with terrorists…is black, and arab, and a voter fraud cheater. It only makes good sense that he never defend himself against all this vile crap that is being put out by his opposition. He should lay back like Kerry did when he was called a coward and a liar, and a scruffy war protester. Quietly insist that an upstanding prosecutor like Starr has every right to spend seventy million dollars on an investigation of a stain on a blue dress like Clinton did. Never say a word in your own defense when someone like Saxbee Chambliss associates you with Saddam Hussein and Osama benLadin, in order to win a Senate seat. It’s really a good idea to not involve yourself while dishonorable people take advantage of your pacification to vilify you.

tim…come on…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 16, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #267152

kctim -

As before, the leader of a group is RESPONSIBLE for the conduct of that group. A general is responsible for the conduct of his army. A captain is responsible for the conduct of his crew. A manager is responsible for the conduct of his baseball team. A store manager is responsible for the conduct of his sales team.

You can try to excuse McCain and Palin all you want…but McCain waited WEEKS before saying anything, and Palin has said nothing at all. We who understand duty and responsibility and leadership know who’s responsible - it’s the LEADER. That’s why he gets the kudos if he’s successful, and that’s why he gets the blame when he’s not.

McCain waited WEEKS to say anything at all, all the time by his inaction allowing the hatred to build and feed on itself. It IS his responsibility. If you can’t understand that, then you know nothing of leadership. It doesn’t matter what experience in leadership you may claim, your real understanding of leadership is not what you believe it to be.

Sorry guy - some are natural leaders, some are not. I admit I’m in the second group. Maybe you’re in the first group - I don’t know.

Some understand leadership, and some don’t. I’m in the first group. You aren’t.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 2:17 AM
Comment #267165

Dude
As far as I know, Obama has come out with his counters and has done so without unfairly labeling all Republicans of all being racists. Why? Because there is no evidence that McCain or Palin support and promote it, and because he, of all people, know that holding people responsible for the words of others is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #267172

Glenn
The people at those rallies do not report to Obama or McCain, nor are there any compliance or disciplinary guidelines they must comply with or fear. The people support either candidate and their ideas voluntarily, not because they must.

To “understand” leadership, one must understand the different types of leadership and which one applies to each situation.

As I said before, if McCain didn’t respond in the way you wanted, fine, but that does not mean McCain or the entire crowd holds the same beliefs as that one lone individual.

“Some understand leadership, and some don’t. I’m in the first group. You aren’t.”

Thats fine Glenn. But when the Republicans pounce on you guys because one dumb individual does or says something stupid at an Obama rally, my position will still be the same. Why? Because I don’t use party to determine right or wrong.

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #267193

>Because I don’t use party to determine right or wrong.
Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 10:46 AM

kctim,

I think you do use party to determine right or wrong.

From your posts, Republicans are generally defended, and Democrats are generally opposed. You may be a strict Constitutionalist, and may put you in a bias for the right, but you forget the Democratic party is within the Constitution as well as the Republican, and the single group that defends the Constitution the best and most fervently has been vilified by the right, even when the ACLU defends the KKK and other extremists of the right.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 1:21 PM
Comment #267207

I may “defend” Republicans more, but it doesn’t mean I judge their actions one way and the same actions by Dems another. They may be more in line with the founders intent, but I do my best to use the same standards for both of you. But, I am human and I am sure I sometimes fail.

“and the single group that defends the Constitution the best and most fervently has been vilified by the right”

You agree with their interpretation and others don’t. They are vilified by those who’s interpretation they do not agree with. Same things with you guys and FOX and the right with the rest of the MSM.

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Post a comment