“Who is Barack Obama?” John McCain is asking us. This should prompt an obvious response: “Who is John McCain?” But we need not ask, because we have seen John McCain, or at least his type, half a century ago. His type had a different name, and trafficked in a different sort of guilt-by-association, but it was a senator whose tactics were the same. The insinuations were the same. Whether the result will be the same remains to be seen.
That long-ago senator embraced the politics of fear as no one had before. He exploited the fears of a paranoid populace. He acquired notoriety and masterminded a brand of smear tactics that became synonymous with his surname, and it was dubbed “McCarthyism.”
McCarthyism effectively came to an end on June 9, 1954, when one courageous attorney named Joseph Welch stood up to the junior senator from Wisconsin and, declaring that McCarthy had done enough in his campaign of guilt-by-association, demanded, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Recently a new term arose to describe the politics of personal destruction: “Swiftboating.” But now we’re seeing a new level of such tactics, and it is particularly vicious, and it is monumentally unforgivable. It is being displayed by John McCain, and by Sarah Palin, and by their various stalking horses and representatives, and if you’re not calling it “McCaining” or “McCainism” then you’re just not paying attention.
Not since McCarthy have we seen such attempts at guilt-by-association as the endeavors to link Obama with terrorism, a naked appeal to the deepest anxieties that Americans continue to feel in an uncertain world. “Who is Barack Obama?” asks this woman whose name was unknown to the population of forty nine states a mere two months ago, and who continues to be screened from the press whenever possible. “Who is Barack Obama?” demands this man who was alive during the Red Scare of the 1950s, who saw first-hand how lives were ruined. Who saw how insinuation and fear mongering created a period of history that we, as Americans, should revile and despise.
And yet there are McCain and Palin et al, creating links between Obama and a home- grown political terrorist group that was active when Obama was eight years old. McCain, who was part of the Keating Five, apparently believes that no one should ever be able to be deemed a worthy acquaintance because they did regrettable things years ago. Somewhere Joseph McCarthy is smiling down (or, if you will, up) while John McCain and Sarah Palin hone the craft of McCaining as engineered by the same smear artists who brought down McCain’s bid in 2000. Terrorism is the new Communism, and there are McCain and Palin, stoking crowds to such over-the-top fury with their attempts to draw tortured connections between Obama and terrorism that you can actually hear people screaming, “Kill him!” when Obama’s name is mentioned. McCain’s belated attempts to suddenly defuse the crowd’s hostility, to describe Obama as a decent family man pales in comparison to the endless Obama=terrorism sentiments that he and his associates have endlessly stoked.
It’s so easy to draw nonsensical comparisons. McCain supporters mention repeatedly that Barack Obama’s middle name is the same as that of a terrorist and pretend it means something. Okay. Let’s point out that John McCain shares the initials and the first two letters of a first name and the first three letters of a surname as Joe McCarthy. Coincidence? We certainly have more evidence for parallel tactics in the McCain/McCarthy connection.
Why is McCain dropping in the polls? You can blame the economy, sure. But perhaps one small reason is that, quite simply, Americans aren’t nearly as stupid as the McCaininites think they are. Because back in 1954, the relatively new medium of television put McCarthy right into peoples’ living rooms and they saw up close the face of fear mongering, and they were repulsed by what they were seeing. It may well be we’re witnessing that again as McCain’s tactics are on view for all to see and people resent his thinking that they’re dumb enough to be suckered. Which isn’t to say that some people aren’t dumb enough. But in this day and age, deliberately trying to link someone to terrorism simply because you’re trying to become president is nothing short of vomitous. It is despicable. It is dishonorable.
Who is John McCain? He is a man who, with his current tactics, has proven that there is no line he will not cross, no slander he will not voice, if he thinks it offers a wisp of hope that he’ll win. Which moves me to ask:
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
PAD
• 
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/articles/2008/10/28/news/local_news/doc49068f6ccce49245010961.txt
I’d like to see more info on that story. I’m not convinced it’s genuine, seeing as, while this supposedly involves college students, only that one college newspaper has reported on it. If this story is true, I’d find it hard to believe that nobody else would be reporting on it.
I’d like to see more info on that story. I’m not convinced it’s genuine, seeing as, while this supposedly involves college students, only that one college newspaper has reported on it. If this story is true, I’d find it hard to believe that nobody else would be reporting on it.
“If this story is true, I’d find it hard to believe that nobody else would be reporting on it.”
It may be true, but there may be more to it than what was quoted here. Also from the write up:
“Elborno said while she has protested at events before, no plans were discussed beforehand for a protest and she shouldn’t have been taken out because she was not causing a disturbance.”
It could also be that some of the people that were removed have, as the one woman admitted to, a history of protesting and disrupting events. If the officers or officials were removing people based on past experiences, it’s every bit as likely that they might have removed a few people who looked like past troublemakers rather than being the people they dealt with before. Not really the brightest thing to do and not how we deal with it where I work, but I know a few campus police who have had to do this kind of pre-emptive removals before.
I’d need to see more though before siding with one group or the other here.
I left out the excerpt quoting the university cop admitting the students hadn’t done anything wrong, and the campaign only invoking their privilege to remove them from private property, and nothing else.
I left out the excerpt quoting the university cop admitting the students hadn’t done anything wrong, and the campaign only invoking their privilege to remove them from private property, and nothing else.
If the officers or officials were removing people based on past experiences, it’s every bit as likely that they might have removed a few people who looked like past troublemakers rather than being the people they dealt with before.
Well, the woman they talk to had said that they were targeting young people for removal. So that leaves the impression that young equals trouble.
And McCain wonders why he’s up a creek without a paddle. 🙂
If the officers or officials were removing people based on past experiences, it’s every bit as likely that they might have removed a few people who looked like past troublemakers rather than being the people they dealt with before.
Well, the woman they talk to had said that they were targeting young people for removal. So that leaves the impression that young equals trouble.
And McCain wonders why he’s up a creek without a paddle. 🙂
A quick Google seems to confirm that Lara Eldorno is a dedicated activist who has taken part in previous protests — against both Democrats and Republicans.
For instance, here’s an item from July 2007 about peace activists staging sit-ins at the Cedar Rapids offices of both of Iowa’s senators, Chuck Grassley (Republican) and Tom Harkin (Democrat):
http://jdeeth.blogspot.com/2007/07/welcome-to-occupation-part-3-protest.html
And here’s one from just a month ago (September 20) of Eldorno being one of several dozen University of Iowa students who disrupted a McCain-Palin rally:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=University-of-Iowa-Student-by-Stephen-Fox-080920-773.html
I think that how candidates and their campaigns choose to deal with protests at their rallies is a test of how they and their administration will deal with criticism and dissent if elected. In my opinion, the McCain campaign deserves a fairly low grade for their handling of this situation.
Yes, Eldorno and others were probably planning to heckle or in other ways disrupt the rally. So? Until they started acting disruptively, they should have been permitted to stay. If they began disrupting, then is the time to take action — be it answering them, ridiculing them, having them ejected or having them arrested.
Unless one is a mind-reader, pre-emptive action in order to prevent acts of protest is likely to catch up and trample on the rights of people who had no intention of protesting. That’s been a hallmark of the Bush administration — as in, for instance, their willingness to spy on innocent citizens in the chance of catching someone guilty. That’s been one of the things I’ve greatly disliked about the Bush administration, and something I’m not keen to see in the next one.
A quick Google seems to confirm that Lara Eldorno is a dedicated activist who has taken part in previous protests — against both Democrats and Republicans.
For instance, here’s an item from July 2007 about peace activists staging sit-ins at the Cedar Rapids offices of both of Iowa’s senators, Chuck Grassley (Republican) and Tom Harkin (Democrat):
http://jdeeth.blogspot.com/2007/07/welcome-to-occupation-part-3-protest.html
And here’s one from just a month ago (September 20) of Eldorno being one of several dozen University of Iowa students who disrupted a McCain-Palin rally:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=University-of-Iowa-Student-by-Stephen-Fox-080920-773.html
I think that how candidates and their campaigns choose to deal with protests at their rallies is a test of how they and their administration will deal with criticism and dissent if elected. In my opinion, the McCain campaign deserves a fairly low grade for their handling of this situation.
Yes, Eldorno and others were probably planning to heckle or in other ways disrupt the rally. So? Until they started acting disruptively, they should have been permitted to stay. If they began disrupting, then is the time to take action — be it answering them, ridiculing them, having them ejected or having them arrested.
Unless one is a mind-reader, pre-emptive action in order to prevent acts of protest is likely to catch up and trample on the rights of people who had no intention of protesting. That’s been a hallmark of the Bush administration — as in, for instance, their willingness to spy on innocent citizens in the chance of catching someone guilty. That’s been one of the things I’ve greatly disliked about the Bush administration, and something I’m not keen to see in the next one.
“Well, the woman they talk to had said that they were targeting young people for removal.”
Yes, and she said that she has protested at events before.
Again…
“Elborno said while she has protested at events before, no plans were discussed beforehand for a protest and she shouldn’t have been taken out because she was not causing a disturbance.”
“Well, the woman they talk to had said that they were targeting young people for removal.”
Yes, and she said that she has protested at events before.
Again…
“Elborno said while she has protested at events before, no plans were discussed beforehand for a protest and she shouldn’t have been taken out because she was not causing a disturbance.”
Yes, and she said that she has protested at events before.
That doesn’t explain everybody else though, does it?
At any rate, this is nothing new, regardless. People have been getting thrown out of Republican events for years now simply because no voice of dissent, even if that voice is never heard, is allowed.
Yes, and she said that she has protested at events before.
That doesn’t explain everybody else though, does it?
At any rate, this is nothing new, regardless. People have been getting thrown out of Republican events for years now simply because no voice of dissent, even if that voice is never heard, is allowed.
Over at the Huffington Post, Sarah Palin says that criticizing her threatens the First Amendment. Ya just gotta love this girl.
(You can read it at huffingtonpostdotcom/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729dot-h-t-m-l)
Glenn Greenwald handles this idea pretty well at the HP, but there are two other ideas Plain put forward in her 20/20 interview with Elizabeth Vargas this evening:
First, in response to the criticism over her expensive wardrobe, she points out that no one has made the same criticism of Joe Biden. Um, yeah, that’s because Obama and Biden haven’t been trying to paint you and your running mate as elitists, Governor. The price of your wardrobe is fair game when it illustrates the dishonesty and hypocrisy in portraying your opponents as being supposedly out of touch with supposedly “regular folks”.
Then, responding to Vargas asking her about the Republicans who have opined that she is unqualified to be VP, Palin says that this is a “superficial conclusion”, as those Republicans have never met her, and she would like it if those Repubs did so. Okay, first of all, opining that Palin is unqualified is not “superficial”; it’s substantial. It’s based on legitimate, relevant issues, like her lack of intellectual curiosity, her disinterest in the Iraq War until her son went over there, her illiteracy (she can’t name one paper she reads), her allusions to banning books from public libraries, her belief that being able to see Russia from Alaska constitutes foreign policy experience, her inability to name one example of anything McCain has done in 26 years in the Senate to push for greater economic regulation aside from the one Katie Couric mentioned to her, her complete ignorance of her coveted post (she thinks the VP is in charge of the Senate), she has used her power as governor improperly, she needs to be sequestered from the media except for some cherry-picked interviews, she thanked an anti-American secessionist group at the RNC for their work, etc. These are not “superficial” matters. It is her own abilities that are superficial.
But more fundamentally, why do these Republicans need to meet with her to draw this conclusion? Is any of this information false? Isn’t it all a matter of public knowledge? What do they need to meet with her in order to base such an opinion of her on this? For that matter, what if the voters base this opinion of her on this information, and vote accordingly? Are they wrong because they haven’t met with her personally? Are the 130 million voters all supposed to meet with Sarah Palin and John McCain personally in order to not vote for them? Moreover, would she be taking this position regarding a person who thought that she was qualified?
Vargas: “Rudy Giuliani said he will vote for you because he thinks you’re fully qualified.”
Palin: “Well, he hasn’t met me don’cha know! Wait until he sits down and talks to me! I mean, he wouldn’t want to be rash in voting for me, would he?”
Somehow, I doubt it.
Viewed this way, one sees what an idiotic counterargument this is on her part, one of many Palin-isms that could fill a book.
“That doesn’t explain everybody else though, does it?”
Yes and no. From my first post about this above:
“… it’s every bit as likely that they might have removed a few people who looked like past troublemakers rather than being the people they dealt with before.”
I’ve seen it done elsewhere and I’ve been told to remove people from events because they thought that the person was someone else. It happens. Also like I said above, it’s not how we do things and I’m not a fan of it, but I want to get more information on this before taking a side on the issue.
“That doesn’t explain everybody else though, does it?”
Yes and no. From my first post about this above:
“… it’s every bit as likely that they might have removed a few people who looked like past troublemakers rather than being the people they dealt with before.”
I’ve seen it done elsewhere and I’ve been told to remove people from events because they thought that the person was someone else. It happens. Also like I said above, it’s not how we do things and I’m not a fan of it, but I want to get more information on this before taking a side on the issue.