“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
• 
Get off the victim plantation. You have been used for too long.
you have been bamboozled & hornswaggled!
*sidelong glance*
Riiiiiight.
If he hasn’t reached the same level yet, then he hasn’t reached the same level yet. Someone could easily point to a murder and say he’s just as bad as Hitler, but that’s an exaggeration and it weakens the argument. As John Stewart pointed out, that kind of exaggeration is insulting to Hitler, he worked hard to be that evil.
Oh, come on, Jason. The thread is less than 24 hours old and ALREADY you’re invoking Hitler to try and undercut an argument? Has every other approach been exhausted that quickly?
PAD
Peter wrote: “Invalid? Really? Well, let’s see:
Senator? Check.
Seeking power? Check.
Appealing to national paranoia? Check.
Linking people to “known” figures of disrepute? Check.
Insinuating wrong-doing as a consequence? Check.
Getting people worked up as a result, making them fearful and angry? Check.
Nope. Looks pretty valid to me.”
I had to re-read that because I thought you were describing Obama.
Peter wrote: “Invalid? Really? Well, let’s see:
Senator? Check.
Seeking power? Check.
Appealing to national paranoia? Check.
Linking people to “known” figures of disrepute? Check.
Insinuating wrong-doing as a consequence? Check.
Getting people worked up as a result, making them fearful and angry? Check.
Nope. Looks pretty valid to me.”
I had to re-read that because I thought you were describing Obama.
PAD: Oh, come on, Jason. The thread is less than 24 hours old and ALREADY you’re invoking Hitler to try and undercut an argument? Has every other approach been exhausted that quickly?
Okay, *now* you have it 100% backwards, PAD.
I didn’t compare anything to Hitler. I talked about how counter productive it is to compare a bad thing to a vastly worse thing.
What you did, comparing McCain to McCarthy, that’s the same thing as invoking Hitler. You’re undercutting your own argument.
I don’t want the conversation about the campaign to go that way. I’m saying that we *shouldn’t* make such extreme comparisons because what McCain has actually done is bad enough to talk about without exaggerating it.
PAD: Oh, come on, Jason. The thread is less than 24 hours old and ALREADY you’re invoking Hitler to try and undercut an argument? Has every other approach been exhausted that quickly?
Okay, *now* you have it 100% backwards, PAD.
I didn’t compare anything to Hitler. I talked about how counter productive it is to compare a bad thing to a vastly worse thing.
What you did, comparing McCain to McCarthy, that’s the same thing as invoking Hitler. You’re undercutting your own argument.
I don’t want the conversation about the campaign to go that way. I’m saying that we *shouldn’t* make such extreme comparisons because what McCain has actually done is bad enough to talk about without exaggerating it.
I think it’s wrong to blame Obama for the fact that an unrepentant terrorist is an accepted part of the Chicago political scene. Blame Chicago politics. Other politicians have some colorful characters that they have to deal with–anyone from Boston had to deal with the Bulger brothers, for example. That scum like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn aren’t shunned is too bad. Obama says he thought he was ‘rehabilitated”, maybe not the best choice of words but pretty much what I would have thought as well. Who would believe that people like that would be accepted without at least some show of remorse? But that’s Chicago politics and it isn’t realistic to think that Obama has ever been in any position to fix it.
Once he’s the most powerful man on Earth that could change. Certainly, nobody can realistically expect Ayers or Dohrn to be influential members of an Obama administration. They’ve served their purpose.
I think it’s wrong to blame Obama for the fact that an unrepentant terrorist is an accepted part of the Chicago political scene. Blame Chicago politics. Other politicians have some colorful characters that they have to deal with–anyone from Boston had to deal with the Bulger brothers, for example. That scum like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn aren’t shunned is too bad. Obama says he thought he was ‘rehabilitated”, maybe not the best choice of words but pretty much what I would have thought as well. Who would believe that people like that would be accepted without at least some show of remorse? But that’s Chicago politics and it isn’t realistic to think that Obama has ever been in any position to fix it.
Once he’s the most powerful man on Earth that could change. Certainly, nobody can realistically expect Ayers or Dohrn to be influential members of an Obama administration. They’ve served their purpose.
Okay, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Here’s what Wikipedia’s got to say about the Weather Underground:
The bombing attacks were mostly against government buildings, along with several banks. Most were preceded by communiqués that provided evacuation warnings, along with statements of the particular matter to which their attacks were allegedly responding. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a statement saying it was “in protest of the US invasion of Laos.” For the bombing of The Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was “in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi.” For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State, they stated it was “in response to escalation in Vietnam.”
At first glance it seems like they were trying to avoid killing innocent people, and were targeting those they saw as complicit in war crimes, such as the bombing of Cambodia.
Back then you had a lot of abuse of power going on. Kent State. The Chicago Eight trial. A raid on a the apartment of the Black Panther member Fred Hampton that killed him and Mark Clark, which many thought was cold-blooded murder rather than self-defense.
While not condoning what the Weather Underground did, I can see why they and others like them would feel like their government had already declared war on its people, and that its people should strike back.
Okay, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Here’s what Wikipedia’s got to say about the Weather Underground:
The bombing attacks were mostly against government buildings, along with several banks. Most were preceded by communiqués that provided evacuation warnings, along with statements of the particular matter to which their attacks were allegedly responding. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a statement saying it was “in protest of the US invasion of Laos.” For the bombing of The Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was “in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi.” For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State, they stated it was “in response to escalation in Vietnam.”
At first glance it seems like they were trying to avoid killing innocent people, and were targeting those they saw as complicit in war crimes, such as the bombing of Cambodia.
Back then you had a lot of abuse of power going on. Kent State. The Chicago Eight trial. A raid on a the apartment of the Black Panther member Fred Hampton that killed him and Mark Clark, which many thought was cold-blooded murder rather than self-defense.
While not condoning what the Weather Underground did, I can see why they and others like them would feel like their government had already declared war on its people, and that its people should strike back.
Dude, relax. McCain is just using this tactic because he knows he’s losing. He’s grasping at straws at this point. Obama is going to win, Peter. You can stop being so overdramatic.
I can see why they and others like them would feel like their government had already declared war on its people, and that its people should strike back.
Well, in this post-9/11 world we live in, Rob, this must mean you’re a terrorist sympathizer. Soon, the rabid masses shall also be yelling for your head and McCain/Palin rallies. 😉
I can see why they and others like them would feel like their government had already declared war on its people, and that its people should strike back.
Well, in this post-9/11 world we live in, Rob, this must mean you’re a terrorist sympathizer. Soon, the rabid masses shall also be yelling for your head and McCain/Palin rallies. 😉
Craig J. Ries: Well, in this post-9/11 world we live in, Rob, this must mean you’re a terrorist sympathizer. Soon, the rabid masses shall also be yelling for your head and McCain/Palin rallies. 😉
Aww, I didn’t know they cared! 🙂
Craig J. Ries: Well, in this post-9/11 world we live in, Rob, this must mean you’re a terrorist sympathizer. Soon, the rabid masses shall also be yelling for your head and McCain/Palin rallies. 😉
Aww, I didn’t know they cared! 🙂
I think the simple observation that McCarthy was wrong long before anyone asked him “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” is both a good point and true.
I think the simple observation that McCarthy was wrong long before anyone asked him “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” is both a good point and true.
However, I WILL blame you, Bill, for calling Ayers unrepentant. That’s simply NOT true.
However, I WILL blame you, Bill, for calling Ayers unrepentant. That’s simply NOT true.
While not condoning what the Weather Underground did, I can see why they and others like them would feel like their government had already declared war on its people, and that its people should strike back.
And I can see why a radical right to lifer might feel that murdering doctors or bombing clinics is justified in their minds. I would not expect such a person to be influential in decent circles, unless they expressly disavowed their earlier crimes.
Looking over the wikipedia entry…In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, using for the first time its new name, the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO), adopting fake identities, and pursuing covert activities only. These initially included preparations for a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers’ dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be “the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory”
On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of an officers’ dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[21] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated due to a wiring malfunction. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion. Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin escaped unharmed.
Nail bombs have one purpose–to kill people. That’s why you put nails in it. Perhaps they had some way of ensuring that innocent people would not be killed along with the “guilty”…but I doubt it. Oh well, omelets and eggs.
The fact that these idiots killed themselves instead of others doesn’t really mitigate the evil, in my opinion. The charming Ms Dohrn is also reported to have remarked approvingly of the Tate-LaBianca murders. Nice people.
More McCainism:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/mccain_seeks_to.html
*sigh* There he goes again with the attempts to link Obama to terrorists. So much for his momentary attack of conscience.
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I don’t like Jackson giving McCain ammunition like this. He should know better than to say things like that, unless he actually hates Barack Obama enough that he wants the guy to lose.
On the other hand, I think that when somebody says Israel’s interests have been put first, then they may have a point. The bombing of Lebanon was wrong. The blockade of Gaza, starving every single person living there (terrorists and peaceful civilians alike) was wrong. Those actions deserved international condemnation. I fervently hope that Tzipi Livni avoids taking the same kinds of actions as Ehud Olmert. But if she does, it will not be okay, and the U.S. should not act as if it’s okay.
More McCainism:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/mccain_seeks_to.html
*sigh* There he goes again with the attempts to link Obama to terrorists. So much for his momentary attack of conscience.
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I don’t like Jackson giving McCain ammunition like this. He should know better than to say things like that, unless he actually hates Barack Obama enough that he wants the guy to lose.
On the other hand, I think that when somebody says Israel’s interests have been put first, then they may have a point. The bombing of Lebanon was wrong. The blockade of Gaza, starving every single person living there (terrorists and peaceful civilians alike) was wrong. Those actions deserved international condemnation. I fervently hope that Tzipi Livni avoids taking the same kinds of actions as Ehud Olmert. But if she does, it will not be okay, and the U.S. should not act as if it’s okay.
Bill Mulligan: Nail bombs have one purpose–to kill people. That’s why you put nails in it. Perhaps they had some way of ensuring that innocent people would not be killed along with the “guilty”…but I doubt it. Oh well, omelets and eggs.
Uhm.
Okay, if they decided that it was worth killing people who had nothing to do with what was going on in Vietnam, then you’re right. “Scum” would be an accurate label. I retract my devil advocacy.
(I really should read the whole entry when I look this kind of stuff up…)
Bill Mulligan: Nail bombs have one purpose–to kill people. That’s why you put nails in it. Perhaps they had some way of ensuring that innocent people would not be killed along with the “guilty”…but I doubt it. Oh well, omelets and eggs.
Uhm.
Okay, if they decided that it was worth killing people who had nothing to do with what was going on in Vietnam, then you’re right. “Scum” would be an accurate label. I retract my devil advocacy.
(I really should read the whole entry when I look this kind of stuff up…)
,i>However, I WILL blame you, Bill, for calling Ayers unrepentant. That’s simply NOT true.
Which part? Terrorist or unrepentant? The former might be a matter of contention, but I think I’m on pretty solid ground. If Mr. Ayers has repented I’m unaware of it and I’ll gladly withdraw the point. Where and when did he do so?
Looking at his entry in wikipedia (and having seen many of these quotes in other sources) he doesn’t seem repentant to me. “”We weren’t terrorists. The reason we weren’t terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people.” ; “I don’t regret setting bombs”; “I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? … I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable.”
Ayers has served his time for the crimes he was found guilty of. People are certainly free to associate with him if they wish. I’d just as soon have coffee and croissants with OJ but to each his own.
,i>However, I WILL blame you, Bill, for calling Ayers unrepentant. That’s simply NOT true.
Which part? Terrorist or unrepentant? The former might be a matter of contention, but I think I’m on pretty solid ground. If Mr. Ayers has repented I’m unaware of it and I’ll gladly withdraw the point. Where and when did he do so?
Looking at his entry in wikipedia (and having seen many of these quotes in other sources) he doesn’t seem repentant to me. “”We weren’t terrorists. The reason we weren’t terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people.” ; “I don’t regret setting bombs”; “I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? … I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable.”
Ayers has served his time for the crimes he was found guilty of. People are certainly free to associate with him if they wish. I’d just as soon have coffee and croissants with OJ but to each his own.
Well-said, PAD.
People who are interested in defending the status quo, or unwilling to deal with reality, always end up saying “but you can’t compare THAT to THAT!” I happen to live in Germany, and it’s even worse here – no-one’s actually learned anything from the disaster that was the Nazis, because Hitler and WW2 have been “sainted” – they are the holy crimes of the past, and nothing can be compared or contrasted. And so they can all happen again.
So yes – I believe it IS legitimate to compare someone’s methods to Hitler. Not always – people comparing Slobodan Milošević to Hitler were ridiculous; the guy was a criminal, but there the scale and the methods were very, very different. But Hitler’s rise to power via demagogy and the support of the capitalist elite (sorry, but it’s true), his methods of removing democratic rights from the constitution, even the early years of the concentration camps (before they became pure death camps)… those have clear parallels today. What’s happening today is not the same – but to learn from the past, we must be able to apply its lessons to the modern day.
So McCarthy was a fanatic and McCain is a hypocrite. But the parallels are there, in the methods they both use. And to dismiss these methods as “just talk” or to ignore their profoundly immoral character just because it’s election season… that’s just mad. Or very, very hypocritical.
For the record, I am not an Obama supporter. I think he rode in on his anti-war record and has the support that he does because of that, but he’s turned around and çráppëd on everyone who supported him, because ultimately he works for the same economic system that the Republicans do, and that system has interests that need defending. And those interests are not those of common people, in the West or in the East.
(But I can see why you’d vote for him over McCain.)
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I don’t like Jackson giving McCain ammunition like this. He should know better than to say things like that, unless he actually hates Barack Obama enough that he wants the guy to lose.
Yes. Exactly. Assuming that he was accurately quoted this is his long promised castration attempt. Look at what he said–Obama will reduce the influence of Jews on USA policy (Yeah, he said “Zionists”, right…), Obama will probably not be able to pull out of Iraq as promised, Obama will meet with the Iranians…these are not exactly very popular positions among big chunks of the electorate. Sounds like Jesse has an agenda…
Okay, if they decided that it was worth killing people who had nothing to do with what was going on in Vietnam, then you’re right. “Scum” would be an accurate label. I retract my devil advocacy. (I really should read the whole entry when I look this kind of stuff up…)
Well, in fairness, before reading it on your prompting I was under the impression that the WU had been a lot more effective than seems to have been the case, so Ayers is not quite the irredeemable slime I thought. Not for lack of trying though…
I’d add this; from a liberal point of view it seems to me that you could argue that Ayers and friends greatest crime was in trying to make themselves the face of the Left Wing in opposition to the war. As such they did tremendous damage to those who were actually interested in stopping the war and not just blowing šhìŧ up. Decent people don’t want to be associated with that kind of mindset.
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I don’t like Jackson giving McCain ammunition like this. He should know better than to say things like that, unless he actually hates Barack Obama enough that he wants the guy to lose.
Yes. Exactly. Assuming that he was accurately quoted this is his long promised castration attempt. Look at what he said–Obama will reduce the influence of Jews on USA policy (Yeah, he said “Zionists”, right…), Obama will probably not be able to pull out of Iraq as promised, Obama will meet with the Iranians…these are not exactly very popular positions among big chunks of the electorate. Sounds like Jesse has an agenda…
Okay, if they decided that it was worth killing people who had nothing to do with what was going on in Vietnam, then you’re right. “Scum” would be an accurate label. I retract my devil advocacy. (I really should read the whole entry when I look this kind of stuff up…)
Well, in fairness, before reading it on your prompting I was under the impression that the WU had been a lot more effective than seems to have been the case, so Ayers is not quite the irredeemable slime I thought. Not for lack of trying though…
I’d add this; from a liberal point of view it seems to me that you could argue that Ayers and friends greatest crime was in trying to make themselves the face of the Left Wing in opposition to the war. As such they did tremendous damage to those who were actually interested in stopping the war and not just blowing šhìŧ up. Decent people don’t want to be associated with that kind of mindset.
PAD: “Jerry, that doesn’t track with what I’ve said at all. I am taking things that McCain, Palin, and his mouthpieces have already said and already done and drawing a parallel to previous behaviors already exhibited by someone else. How is that remotely similar to McCain making assertions about Obama that are, as you yourself say, 180 degrees away from anything that Obama has said or done? I’m saying if X, then Y, and you’re saying if X, then pudding. There’s no connection.”
Because they are pointing at things that Obama has said and has done and claiming that since he’s already done “A” he’ll “obviously” escalate it to the level of “B” once in office and that makes them justified for condemning him for it now. That’s what you’re doing here. You’re implementing the Bush policy of Preemption and attacking him for what he may one day do rather than for what he’s actually done now.
McCain has not reached anywhere near the levels of McCarthy and he has actually gotten booed at his own rallies for pulling the reigns back and telling the nutjobs in the crowds that Obama isn’t a terrorist, isn’t an Arab, isn’t a Muslim and is in fact a good and decent family man with whom he simply has very strong fundamental disagreements with. My god… You’re right! It Joe McCarthy all over again!!!
Look, I don’t know what the hëll is wrong with McCain these days. It’s a great disappointment for me because, while I never went with the notion that he was a RINO, I once found McCain to be a very acceptable option as a possible POTUS. If my memory serves me correctly; you have said as much here as late as 2005 or 2006. But as disappointed as I am and as pathetic as McCain has gotten and allowed his campaign to become; he’s still a far cry from being at the level of a Joe McCarthy.
This is a silly as the nimrods on the Right who quote Clinton, Obama, Kennedy or Kerry and then quote Karl Marx and claim that the members of the modern Democratic Party are every bit the socialists and communists of old Russia. There are levels and degrees of actions and words that matter when looking at something like that. Obama is not Marx and McCain is not McCarthy.
Micha: “Right now it seems some of the Republicans are being unhinged by the possibility of Obama winning.”
Yeah, and I’d say that AnthonyX is about one month shy of a full breakdown at this rate.
Jason: “If he hasn’t reached the same level yet, then he hasn’t reached the same level yet. Someone could easily point to a murder and say he’s just as bad as Hitler, but that’s an exaggeration and it weakens the argument. As John Stewart pointed out, that kind of exaggeration is insulting to Hitler, he worked hard to be that evil.”
PAD: “Oh, come on, Jason. The thread is less than 24 hours old and ALREADY you’re invoking Hitler to try and undercut an argument? Has every other approach been exhausted that quickly?”
Actually there is a sorta valid point in there based on politics rather than murderers. If Jason had thought it through a bit before posting he would have hit it out of the park.
George W. Bush.
No one who has ever read anything I’ve written here about that man can believe that I support him. But the fringe left gets itself worked up into rapturous glory proclaiming that Bush is Hitler. They come off looking unhinged and stupid to anyone who isn’t a hardcore Kool-Aid drinker. Well, while this isn’t quite to the level of that comparison, your McCain/McCarthy comparison is still off base for the same reasons. W has never reached the levels of a Hitler. McCain hasn’t reached the levels of a McCarthy. To claim either trivializes and minimizes the vile actions true evils of both men.
Bill Mulligan: “I think it’s wrong to blame Obama for the fact that an unrepentant terrorist is an accepted part of the Chicago political scene. Blame Chicago politics.”
Hëll, blame McCain’s supporters. The board that Obama sat on with Ayers was created by the Annenbergs (who also appointed Ayers if my memory of several news reports serves me correctly) and the Annenbergs are now big McCain supporters. That would mean that the people who where, by McCain’s measuring stick, employing and “funding” a domestic terrorists are now funding John McCain. That would mean, by McCain’s measuring stick, that McCain is being funded by terrorists. If McCain is dumb enough to pull out the “Ayers Card” in the debate tonight; Obama would be an idiot to not turn it around and make it blow up in McCain’s face.
Rob Brown: “At first glance it seems like they were trying to avoid killing innocent people, and were targeting those they saw as complicit in war crimes, such as the bombing of Cambodia.”
First, Wiki ain’t the greatest source on Earth for solid facts. Second… No. Just… No.
You don’t get to claim that you were trying to avoid killing innocent people when you’re planting homemade bombs in buildings where civilian employees and regular people attending to there own business can be found. They planted bombs in areas where they knew regular people would be.
PAD: “Jerry, that doesn’t track with what I’ve said at all. I am taking things that McCain, Palin, and his mouthpieces have already said and already done and drawing a parallel to previous behaviors already exhibited by someone else. How is that remotely similar to McCain making assertions about Obama that are, as you yourself say, 180 degrees away from anything that Obama has said or done? I’m saying if X, then Y, and you’re saying if X, then pudding. There’s no connection.”
Because they are pointing at things that Obama has said and has done and claiming that since he’s already done “A” he’ll “obviously” escalate it to the level of “B” once in office and that makes them justified for condemning him for it now. That’s what you’re doing here. You’re implementing the Bush policy of Preemption and attacking him for what he may one day do rather than for what he’s actually done now.
McCain has not reached anywhere near the levels of McCarthy and he has actually gotten booed at his own rallies for pulling the reigns back and telling the nutjobs in the crowds that Obama isn’t a terrorist, isn’t an Arab, isn’t a Muslim and is in fact a good and decent family man with whom he simply has very strong fundamental disagreements with. My god… You’re right! It Joe McCarthy all over again!!!
Look, I don’t know what the hëll is wrong with McCain these days. It’s a great disappointment for me because, while I never went with the notion that he was a RINO, I once found McCain to be a very acceptable option as a possible POTUS. If my memory serves me correctly; you have said as much here as late as 2005 or 2006. But as disappointed as I am and as pathetic as McCain has gotten and allowed his campaign to become; he’s still a far cry from being at the level of a Joe McCarthy.
This is a silly as the nimrods on the Right who quote Clinton, Obama, Kennedy or Kerry and then quote Karl Marx and claim that the members of the modern Democratic Party are every bit the socialists and communists of old Russia. There are levels and degrees of actions and words that matter when looking at something like that. Obama is not Marx and McCain is not McCarthy.
Micha: “Right now it seems some of the Republicans are being unhinged by the possibility of Obama winning.”
Yeah, and I’d say that AnthonyX is about one month shy of a full breakdown at this rate.
Jason: “If he hasn’t reached the same level yet, then he hasn’t reached the same level yet. Someone could easily point to a murder and say he’s just as bad as Hitler, but that’s an exaggeration and it weakens the argument. As John Stewart pointed out, that kind of exaggeration is insulting to Hitler, he worked hard to be that evil.”
PAD: “Oh, come on, Jason. The thread is less than 24 hours old and ALREADY you’re invoking Hitler to try and undercut an argument? Has every other approach been exhausted that quickly?”
Actually there is a sorta valid point in there based on politics rather than murderers. If Jason had thought it through a bit before posting he would have hit it out of the park.
George W. Bush.
No one who has ever read anything I’ve written here about that man can believe that I support him. But the fringe left gets itself worked up into rapturous glory proclaiming that Bush is Hitler. They come off looking unhinged and stupid to anyone who isn’t a hardcore Kool-Aid drinker. Well, while this isn’t quite to the level of that comparison, your McCain/McCarthy comparison is still off base for the same reasons. W has never reached the levels of a Hitler. McCain hasn’t reached the levels of a McCarthy. To claim either trivializes and minimizes the vile actions true evils of both men.
Bill Mulligan: “I think it’s wrong to blame Obama for the fact that an unrepentant terrorist is an accepted part of the Chicago political scene. Blame Chicago politics.”
Hëll, blame McCain’s supporters. The board that Obama sat on with Ayers was created by the Annenbergs (who also appointed Ayers if my memory of several news reports serves me correctly) and the Annenbergs are now big McCain supporters. That would mean that the people who where, by McCain’s measuring stick, employing and “funding” a domestic terrorists are now funding John McCain. That would mean, by McCain’s measuring stick, that McCain is being funded by terrorists. If McCain is dumb enough to pull out the “Ayers Card” in the debate tonight; Obama would be an idiot to not turn it around and make it blow up in McCain’s face.
Rob Brown: “At first glance it seems like they were trying to avoid killing innocent people, and were targeting those they saw as complicit in war crimes, such as the bombing of Cambodia.”
First, Wiki ain’t the greatest source on Earth for solid facts. Second… No. Just… No.
You don’t get to claim that you were trying to avoid killing innocent people when you’re planting homemade bombs in buildings where civilian employees and regular people attending to there own business can be found. They planted bombs in areas where they knew regular people would be.
When that woman was calling Obama an ‘Arab’,
The look in his eyes seemed to say “oh great,
look who I have on my side. Kill me now!”
Sorry Rob. I didn’t see your second post and exchange with Bill until after I posted and refreshed the page.
Sorry Rob. I didn’t see your second post and exchange with Bill until after I posted and refreshed the page.
I agree with Adam-Troy Castro. A simple head-shake can be Obama’s “There you go again.”
I agree with Adam-Troy Castro. A simple head-shake can be Obama’s “There you go again.”
Pete, can I repost this on my own blog? Not all the comments, just the main article. All due credit will be given, but you’ve said far more eloquently than I could what I’ve been thinking for a bit now.
I’d also like to email it to a friend who tried and failed in his bid for governor of Texas. Another eloquent descendant of David, named Kinky…
Miles
Pete, can I repost this on my own blog? Not all the comments, just the main article. All due credit will be given, but you’ve said far more eloquently than I could what I’ve been thinking for a bit now.
I’d also like to email it to a friend who tried and failed in his bid for governor of Texas. Another eloquent descendant of David, named Kinky…
Miles
Those that use murder to advance “progressive” causes don’t deserve any more sympathy than those that murder for conservative causes.
Obviously, Ayers isn’t as bad as Bin Laden, since Bin Laden has caused many more pain and death, doesn’t care at all if civilians are killed, and has a much more loathsome ideology to boot, but Ayers is still pretty bad.
Those that use murder to advance “progressive” causes don’t deserve any more sympathy than those that murder for conservative causes.
Obviously, Ayers isn’t as bad as Bin Laden, since Bin Laden has caused many more pain and death, doesn’t care at all if civilians are killed, and has a much more loathsome ideology to boot, but Ayers is still pretty bad.
Jonas: “People who are interested in defending the status quo, or unwilling to deal with reality, always end up saying “but you can’t compare THAT to THAT!””
No, Jonas, sane people with a sense of perspective often say that. It’s the people who are so in love with their own biases that they’re unwilling to deal with reality make the off the wall comparisons. You also short circuit your own statement in the start of your second paragraph.
Jonas: “So yes – I believe it IS legitimate to compare someone’s methods to Hitler. Not always – people comparing Slobodan Milošević to Hitler were ridiculous; the guy was a criminal, but there the scale and the methods were very, very different.”
You’ve just said what those of us who disagree with PAD’s assertion have said. The two don’t compare and it’s ridiculous to say they do. You’ve just said that comparing Milošević to Hitler is ridiculous and that they don’t compare. So, does that mean that you’re defending the status quo, or unwilling to deal with reality?
Miles: Yes. Absolutely.
Jonas: I wish you had a higher opinion of Obama, but thanks for your comments about McCain.
Because they are pointing at things that Obama has said and has done and claiming that since he’s already done “A” he’ll “obviously” escalate it to the level of “B” once in office and that makes them justified for condemning him for it now. That’s what you’re doing here. You’re implementing the Bush policy of Preemption and attacking him for what he may one day do rather than for what he’s actually done now
Uhm…no. I’m really not.
I’m saying McCain’s using the same tactics as McCarthy did. And he is.
I’m saying his doing so is dishonorable. It is.
I’m saying he should be ashamed. He should be.
I’m saying the fact that he hasn’t put together a special committee, started rounding up people and forcing them to name anyone they might have known at some point who was a terrorist, or face jail time, is irrelevant, because you shouldn’t have to wait until matters reach that point to say that McCarthyesque tactics are being used. And you shouldn’t.
PAD
Miles: Yes. Absolutely.
Jonas: I wish you had a higher opinion of Obama, but thanks for your comments about McCain.
Because they are pointing at things that Obama has said and has done and claiming that since he’s already done “A” he’ll “obviously” escalate it to the level of “B” once in office and that makes them justified for condemning him for it now. That’s what you’re doing here. You’re implementing the Bush policy of Preemption and attacking him for what he may one day do rather than for what he’s actually done now
Uhm…no. I’m really not.
I’m saying McCain’s using the same tactics as McCarthy did. And he is.
I’m saying his doing so is dishonorable. It is.
I’m saying he should be ashamed. He should be.
I’m saying the fact that he hasn’t put together a special committee, started rounding up people and forcing them to name anyone they might have known at some point who was a terrorist, or face jail time, is irrelevant, because you shouldn’t have to wait until matters reach that point to say that McCarthyesque tactics are being used. And you shouldn’t.
PAD
I don’t support either of the major candidates, I think both are equally, and egregiously, flawed. That said, we should stop thinking with emotional reaction to things and consider some facts.
With apologies Peter, I believe you are confusing his message with his staff’s message. How much the two are intertwined is up for debate, but there is noteworthy rumbling that he does not approve of this tactic. In fact, there was a speech he was at where someone shouted something like [Eff] Obama or somesuch nonsense. Mccain, supposedly, walked into the crowd and spoke specifically to the man saying something to the effect of [You shouldn’t be afraid of Obama, I think I’m a better candidate, but Obama is a good man].
I recommend everyone visit FactCheck.Org, I am not an employee or a promoter for them. They are a non-profit site that tries to tell us all the truth about everyone’s lies.
I don’t support either of the major candidates, I think both are equally, and egregiously, flawed. That said, we should stop thinking with emotional reaction to things and consider some facts.
With apologies Peter, I believe you are confusing his message with his staff’s message. How much the two are intertwined is up for debate, but there is noteworthy rumbling that he does not approve of this tactic. In fact, there was a speech he was at where someone shouted something like [Eff] Obama or somesuch nonsense. Mccain, supposedly, walked into the crowd and spoke specifically to the man saying something to the effect of [You shouldn’t be afraid of Obama, I think I’m a better candidate, but Obama is a good man].
I recommend everyone visit FactCheck.Org, I am not an employee or a promoter for them. They are a non-profit site that tries to tell us all the truth about everyone’s lies.
I understand and empathize with the anger that would lead one to liken McCain to McCarthy. McCain has done some very bad things in this campaign. However, if we can put our anger aside for a second, and analyze this from a psychological/motivational perspective, the two men really aren’t alike. McCarthy was a man who had no compunctions about his tactics whatsoever. He saw the hot-button fear-provoking issue of his day, and his first and only instinct was to seize hold and build his career from the ground up using it.
McCain, by contrast, is going against his instincts. It should be obvious from his continually conflicting statements that he isn’t comfortable with this, and that this strategy didn’t originate with him. The guy ran as the progressive Republican candidate in 2000, and got beaten by Bush/Rove who used a combination of personal smears and playing to hard right. He was told by his advisers that his failing was not appealing enough to the base.
So when he starts running for ’08, he tries to do that. Only to find that the winds have shifted, and the Republican brand is no longer en vogue. Imagine if he’d used the 2000 strategy this time around! Now with weeks left, the economy falling apart, the war unpopular, he sees his last chance at the presidency slipping away. He’s surrounded by many of the same advisers who helped Bush win in 2000 and 2004, they tell him, “You have to hit Obama where he’s vulnerable. If you don’t do it, you’re going to lose.”
And this is his moral failing. He wants to win so bad, he acquiesces. He knows in his heart it’s wrong, but he compromises his values and goes ahead with it. But his heart isn’t in it, and that’s why he’s so bad at it. The irony is, if he was McCarthy, if he was Bush, someone without a real moral center, the attacks might be a lot more effective.
So, someone who’s demonstrated serious moral weakness, enough to disqualify him, yeah. But, and not to go all biblical, even the greatest of prophets had moral failings that prevented him from getting to the Promised Land. There’s still a difference between a basically good person who fails a moral test, and someone without morals whatsoever.
Interesting post, Matt.
I can feel a bit sorry for McCain, and acknowledge that he is nowhere near as bad as scum such as Joe McCarthy.
Still, the guy chose to use the same vile campaign machine that Bush used against him. That is pretty sad.
Interesting post, Matt.
I can feel a bit sorry for McCain, and acknowledge that he is nowhere near as bad as scum such as Joe McCarthy.
Still, the guy chose to use the same vile campaign machine that Bush used against him. That is pretty sad.
Matt, that sums up my feelings on the issue very well.
Matt, that sums up my feelings on the issue very well.