“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
• 
He doesn’t believe in McCarthy, but he’s doing everything he can to show McCarthyism works? How does that not earn McCain a seat in a deeper circle of hëll?
He doesn’t believe in McCarthy, but he’s doing everything he can to show McCarthyism works? How does that not earn McCain a seat in a deeper circle of hëll?
I’m saying McCain’s using the same tactics as McCarthy did. And he is.
Yeah, because that mean old McCarthy always stopped the angry supporters he had from speaking and corrected them by telling them that his political opponents weren’t communists like McCain has been doing of late by telling people at live events 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. Ðámņ that evil, McCarty-like John McCain!!!
McCain is a desperate candidate throwing whatever he can out there to see what will stick. He’s making mistake after mistake and he’s listening to people that tell him how to whip the base into a frenzy rather than running a sane campaign. The simple fact that he balks when confronted with the full extent of what some of the more fringe-like rhetoric has wrought should be enough for an unbiased observer to dismiss a comparison between McCain and McCarthy.
I also agree with Doug Stacy to some degree. McCain and the McCain campaign are not, so it would seem, the same thing these days. As I said above, there have been moments where his campaign has come out and basically declared that John McCain doesn’t speak for the McCain Campaign when he’s gone of script and said something that his handlers didn’t like him saying. Kinda sad that the self proclaimed “maverick” has apparently become a puppet of his handlers.
I’m saying McCain’s using the same tactics as McCarthy did. And he is.
Yeah, because that mean old McCarthy always stopped the angry supporters he had from speaking and corrected them by telling them that his political opponents weren’t communists like McCain has been doing of late by telling people at live events 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. Ðámņ that evil, McCarty-like John McCain!!!
McCain is a desperate candidate throwing whatever he can out there to see what will stick. He’s making mistake after mistake and he’s listening to people that tell him how to whip the base into a frenzy rather than running a sane campaign. The simple fact that he balks when confronted with the full extent of what some of the more fringe-like rhetoric has wrought should be enough for an unbiased observer to dismiss a comparison between McCain and McCarthy.
I also agree with Doug Stacy to some degree. McCain and the McCain campaign are not, so it would seem, the same thing these days. As I said above, there have been moments where his campaign has come out and basically declared that John McCain doesn’t speak for the McCain Campaign when he’s gone of script and said something that his handlers didn’t like him saying. Kinda sad that the self proclaimed “maverick” has apparently become a puppet of his handlers.
“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.”
And Matt FTW!!!
“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.”
And Matt FTW!!!
By your own account McCain chose to disregard his own notions of right and wrong. This literally disqualifies him as the former.
If he his own notions of right and wrong does not keep his behavior in check, he may as well not have them at all.
By your own account McCain chose to disregard his own notions of right and wrong. This literally disqualifies him as the former.
If he his own notions of right and wrong does not keep his behavior in check, he may as well not have them at all.
I was going to join Jerry in voicing my disagreement with PAD, until a careful re-examination of his post led me to conclude that he is correct. What PAD is saying is that McCain has adopted McCarthy-like tactics, which is true; and that such tactics are morally reprehensible, which is also true.
Jerry Chandler: “Yeah, because that mean old McCarthy always stopped the angry supporters he had from speaking and corrected them…”
Jerry, PAD never said that McCain was as bad a person as Joe McCarthy, nor that he has used these tactics as frequently or to the extent that McCarthy did. Again, he simply said that McCain has adopted McCarthy-like tactics, and that such tactics are reprehensible.
McCain may have attempted to reverse course once he realized what he had done, but that doesn’t change the fact that he took a page from McCarthy’s book. Also, let’s not give McCain more credit than he deserves: at the same time he was correcting his own supporters’ misconceptions about Obama’s lineage, his campaign was running commercials linking Obama to domestic terrorism and Palin was on the stump delivering the same message on McCain’s behalf. Moreover, McCain has since made remarks about Obama’s connections to Ayers.
I was going to join Jerry in voicing my disagreement with PAD, until a careful re-examination of his post led me to conclude that he is correct. What PAD is saying is that McCain has adopted McCarthy-like tactics, which is true; and that such tactics are morally reprehensible, which is also true.
Jerry Chandler: “Yeah, because that mean old McCarthy always stopped the angry supporters he had from speaking and corrected them…”
Jerry, PAD never said that McCain was as bad a person as Joe McCarthy, nor that he has used these tactics as frequently or to the extent that McCarthy did. Again, he simply said that McCain has adopted McCarthy-like tactics, and that such tactics are reprehensible.
McCain may have attempted to reverse course once he realized what he had done, but that doesn’t change the fact that he took a page from McCarthy’s book. Also, let’s not give McCain more credit than he deserves: at the same time he was correcting his own supporters’ misconceptions about Obama’s lineage, his campaign was running commercials linking Obama to domestic terrorism and Palin was on the stump delivering the same message on McCain’s behalf. Moreover, McCain has since made remarks about Obama’s connections to Ayers.
Matt: “There’s still a difference between a basically good person who fails a moral test, and someone without morals whatsoever.”
PAD never said otherwise.
Jerry Chandler: “And Matt FTW!!!”
Not so much, no. Unless drawing an incorrect inference counts for a win.
Matt: “There’s still a difference between a basically good person who fails a moral test, and someone without morals whatsoever.”
PAD never said otherwise.
Jerry Chandler: “And Matt FTW!!!”
Not so much, no. Unless drawing an incorrect inference counts for a win.
By the way, there are some polls that explicitly surveyed people about their feelings toward McCain’s tactics. It turns out his smear campaign has indeed backfired and caused people to turn against him. Just when I think it’s time to give up on the human race… 😉
By the way, there are some polls that explicitly surveyed people about their feelings toward McCain’s tactics. It turns out his smear campaign has indeed backfired and caused people to turn against him. Just when I think it’s time to give up on the human race… 😉
Just throwing some words out here.
I was an Edwards supporter (oops). I was never going to vote for McCain for a variety of reasons. I was unsure about Obama because for awhile, I really did think the “Change we can believe in” line was vague and way to gimmicky. Through the debates, he’s grown on me. I’m anxious to watch tonight.
What I’m really anxious to see, though, is what all the knuckleheads will do when, if Obama is elected, the world doesn’t implode. You know the knuckleheads I mean, the one’s who say things like, “You better get your bomb shelter ready and get get all the dried food you can if Obama gets elected…” or “When Obama gets elected, he’ll put UN troops on all of our street corners and we’ll be on house arrest.” Or even those people who think on some level that he’s a secret Muslim who will wheel in some “Arab Horse” and let radical extremeists invade our country or whatever other thing these knuckleheads believe.
I mean, some of these people say things out of fear of his skin color, some over his name, some over his policies (usually over perceived policies like he’s going to tax gas 10 dollars a gallon). Many people I know are acting as if, when elected, he’ll become a dictator and just wiggle his nose and the country will be destroyed.
Anyway, what I’m getting at is what happens when Obama gets elected and…nothing bad happens. When it’s business as usual. Or, if things get better. The economy straightens out. The violence in Iraq slows and our occupation winds down.
What happens when no UN Troops come to put us under house arrest? What do these knuckleheads do then? They’ll never admit to being wrong but I just can’t wait to see their reaction.
Unfortunately, the next President is in a position where things probably *won’t* get better. The economy will almost certainly be better by 4 years from now, but this first year or two could be really rough.
Plus, things could go really badly with Iraq. The deal Bush is trying to get signed has us pulling out by the end of 2011. Obama wants us out by the end of 2010. Either way, the Iraqi government could be falling apart by the next election, which would be seen as a failure by the current President even if it was unavoidable. (I’m very pessimistic about Iraq’s future no matter how long we stay there.)
This stuff isn’t certain, but the incoming President definitely has a harder job ahead of him than any incoming President in my lifetime. So if Obama wins, the people who don’t like him could easily find plenty of excuses to say the sky is falling, even if nobody else could have done any better.
Unfortunately, the next President is in a position where things probably *won’t* get better. The economy will almost certainly be better by 4 years from now, but this first year or two could be really rough.
Plus, things could go really badly with Iraq. The deal Bush is trying to get signed has us pulling out by the end of 2011. Obama wants us out by the end of 2010. Either way, the Iraqi government could be falling apart by the next election, which would be seen as a failure by the current President even if it was unavoidable. (I’m very pessimistic about Iraq’s future no matter how long we stay there.)
This stuff isn’t certain, but the incoming President definitely has a harder job ahead of him than any incoming President in my lifetime. So if Obama wins, the people who don’t like him could easily find plenty of excuses to say the sky is falling, even if nobody else could have done any better.
Rene: Those that use murder to advance “progressive” causes don’t deserve any more sympathy than those that murder for conservative causes.
Yeah Rene, I agree. I mean, I was originally thinking that maybe those guys just wanted to blow up empty buildings in order to make a statement, as opposed to killing PEOPLE. That was before I read about the nail bomb, though.
Rene: Those that use murder to advance “progressive” causes don’t deserve any more sympathy than those that murder for conservative causes.
Yeah Rene, I agree. I mean, I was originally thinking that maybe those guys just wanted to blow up empty buildings in order to make a statement, as opposed to killing PEOPLE. That was before I read about the nail bomb, though.
Bill Myers: “McCain may have attempted to reverse course once he realized what he had done, but that doesn’t change the fact that he took a page from McCarthy’s book.
I still can’t agree. I don’t feel that he’s done enough things like McCarthy or done things to the level that McCarthy did to really have a valid comparison of even the tactics be made. He’s engaged in some Rovean tactics to be sure, but I don’t believe that he’s reached the level of or really engaged in things that can truly be called McCarthyism.
I think what he’s said and done are vile and despicable, but I won’t diminish what McCarthyism was by trying to attack McCain’s stupidity with it.
Also, let’s not give McCain more credit than he deserves: at the same time he was correcting his own supporters’ misconceptions about Obama’s lineage, his campaign was running commercials linking Obama to domestic terrorism and Palin was on the stump delivering the same message on McCain’s behalf. Moreover, McCain has since made remarks about Obama’s connections to Ayers.”
Yeah… I and others here have addressed the fact that McCain and his campaign don’t seem to be on the same page or that McCain doesn’t seem to be running his own campaign these days. But there are still signs of sanity popping up and creeping in from time to time. The news last night mentioned that the McCain campaign had just dismissed a campaign staffer (I think it was a Florida staffer) who told people at a rally to vote against Obama because he was a Muslim.
This is a candidate and a campaign that’s found itself on desperate ground. They’re throwing whatever mud that they can sling and they’re praying that something works for them. They just haven’t figured out that there are a lot of people who are middle of the ground voters that they’re turning off more and more as they go over this cliff.
This isn’t McCarthyism; it’s bad comedy that’s turning into self destructive tragedy.
Czar: “What I’m really anxious to see, though, is what all the knuckleheads will do when, if Obama is elected, the world doesn’t implode. You know the knuckleheads I mean, the one’s who say things like, “You better get your bomb shelter ready and get get all the dried food you can if Obama gets elected…” or “When Obama gets elected, he’ll put UN troops on all of our street corners and we’ll be on house arrest.” Or even those people who think on some level that he’s a secret Muslim who will wheel in some “Arab Horse” and let radical extremeists invade our country or whatever other thing these knuckleheads believe.”
Yeah, I actually know guys who are buying PVC piping and planning to bury their guns when Obama bans all firearms in his first year in office.
Bill Myers: “McCain may have attempted to reverse course once he realized what he had done, but that doesn’t change the fact that he took a page from McCarthy’s book.
I still can’t agree. I don’t feel that he’s done enough things like McCarthy or done things to the level that McCarthy did to really have a valid comparison of even the tactics be made. He’s engaged in some Rovean tactics to be sure, but I don’t believe that he’s reached the level of or really engaged in things that can truly be called McCarthyism.
I think what he’s said and done are vile and despicable, but I won’t diminish what McCarthyism was by trying to attack McCain’s stupidity with it.
Also, let’s not give McCain more credit than he deserves: at the same time he was correcting his own supporters’ misconceptions about Obama’s lineage, his campaign was running commercials linking Obama to domestic terrorism and Palin was on the stump delivering the same message on McCain’s behalf. Moreover, McCain has since made remarks about Obama’s connections to Ayers.”
Yeah… I and others here have addressed the fact that McCain and his campaign don’t seem to be on the same page or that McCain doesn’t seem to be running his own campaign these days. But there are still signs of sanity popping up and creeping in from time to time. The news last night mentioned that the McCain campaign had just dismissed a campaign staffer (I think it was a Florida staffer) who told people at a rally to vote against Obama because he was a Muslim.
This is a candidate and a campaign that’s found itself on desperate ground. They’re throwing whatever mud that they can sling and they’re praying that something works for them. They just haven’t figured out that there are a lot of people who are middle of the ground voters that they’re turning off more and more as they go over this cliff.
This isn’t McCarthyism; it’s bad comedy that’s turning into self destructive tragedy.
Czar: “What I’m really anxious to see, though, is what all the knuckleheads will do when, if Obama is elected, the world doesn’t implode. You know the knuckleheads I mean, the one’s who say things like, “You better get your bomb shelter ready and get get all the dried food you can if Obama gets elected…” or “When Obama gets elected, he’ll put UN troops on all of our street corners and we’ll be on house arrest.” Or even those people who think on some level that he’s a secret Muslim who will wheel in some “Arab Horse” and let radical extremeists invade our country or whatever other thing these knuckleheads believe.”
Yeah, I actually know guys who are buying PVC piping and planning to bury their guns when Obama bans all firearms in his first year in office.
Jason M. Bryant: This stuff isn’t certain, but the incoming President definitely has a harder job ahead of him than any incoming President in my lifetime. So if Obama wins, the people who don’t like him could easily find plenty of excuses to say the sky is falling, even if nobody else could have done any better.
I’m worried about that too, but I’m glad that we’re aware of these problems now and that everybody else is too.
You see, when the Bush Administration tried to blame 9/11 and the deficit and everything under the sun on the Clinton Administration, a lot of people would roll their eyes and say “yeah, nice try. None of this stuff started going wrong until after you were in office. Why don’t you man up and take responsibility for it?”
By comparison, if things go wrong for President Obama (ah, that has a nice ring to it), he can say “It was like that when I got here.” And he’ll be telling the truth. If it keeps getting worse, he can say “There’s only so much that we can possibly do to turn things around. You can’t make things better overnight.” He’ll be telling the truth there, too.
“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.”
Oh, but the Annebergs are friends with the Regans, and they haven’t liked McCain since he cheated on and dumped his crippled first wife for a much younger bimbo he met in a bar.
“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.”
Oh, but the Annebergs are friends with the Regans, and they haven’t liked McCain since he cheated on and dumped his crippled first wife for a much younger bimbo he met in a bar.
Matt sez: “McCain, by contrast, is going against his instincts….”
Only if you believe in the myth of McCain 2000.
But when you look at McCain pre-2000, you see the same guy who’s lurching around stages today.
Matt sez: “McCain, by contrast, is going against his instincts….”
Only if you believe in the myth of McCain 2000.
But when you look at McCain pre-2000, you see the same guy who’s lurching around stages today.
Jerry Chandler: “I don’t feel that he’s done enough things like McCarthy or done things to the level that McCarthy did to really have a valid comparison of even the tactics be made.”
The difference is one of degree rather than kind. The comparison is nevertheless valid: McCain is attempting to achieve power by linking Obama to Ayers through guilt by association. McCarthy simply took it further. Two things needn’t be identical to be similar.
An aside: I’m watching “The Jim Lehrer Newshour” right now, and David Brooks just joked that even if Barack Obama pledged his allegiance to Al Qaeda during tonight’s debate he could still win the election. LOL!
Jerry Chandler: “I don’t feel that he’s done enough things like McCarthy or done things to the level that McCarthy did to really have a valid comparison of even the tactics be made.”
The difference is one of degree rather than kind. The comparison is nevertheless valid: McCain is attempting to achieve power by linking Obama to Ayers through guilt by association. McCarthy simply took it further. Two things needn’t be identical to be similar.
An aside: I’m watching “The Jim Lehrer Newshour” right now, and David Brooks just joked that even if Barack Obama pledged his allegiance to Al Qaeda during tonight’s debate he could still win the election. LOL!
Rob Brown: “I’m worried about that too, but I’m glad that we’re aware of these problems now and that everybody else is too.”
Everybody knew that before. One of the things I find funny about some of the fringe Right pundits is how many of them said that they would vote for Hillary (back when they thought she would win) over McCain because the next POTUS would be walking into a train wreck situation and they wanted “the other team” to take the hit when things went wrong. The not-in-the-ha-ha-way funny thing is that everything that they thought would go wrong next year started going wrong before the election and started going even more wrong than they predicted.
I’m not sure which thing the Gods of Irony found funnier. Do they find it funny that the crowd that claims that Democrats hate America and that the Democrats believed that bad news for America was good news them were themselves hoping for bad times to befall us in order to wreck a Democrat POTUS’s term and party or that the bad times they hoped for hit so early that it my have helped to insulate a Democrat from some of their planned criticisms?
Comparing McCain to McCarthy? Wow, you should get a job with Obama’s campaign and write some shameful political ads for him.
Comparing McCain to McCarthy? Wow, you should get a job with Obama’s campaign and write some shameful political ads for him.
Peter David: 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.
Rudy: I had to re-read that because I thought you were describing Obama.
Luigi Novi: When has Obama appealed to national paranoia, linked people to figures of disrepute to insinuate wrong-doing as a consequence or gotten people worked up and made them fearful and angry?
Jerry Chandler: First, Wiki ain’t the greatest source on Earth for solid facts.
Luigi Novi: And it doesn’t claim to be. It’s an encyclopedia, and therefore, a tertiary source that references the primary sources that are cited in its texts. In the case of the portion of the Wikipedia article Rob quoted, it cited the 2002 documentary The Weather Underground. If you want to challenge the reliability of that source, cool beans, but challenging the statement because Wikipedia merely documented it misses the point.
Mike wrote: He doesn’t believe in McCarthy, but he’s doing everything he can to show McCarthyism works? How does that not earn McCain a seat in a deeper circle of hëll?
Well, he’s not doing everything he can. In fact, by any measure, he’s doing a pretty half-assed job of it (and thus getting flak from hard-liners in his party). Now, some may say that simply means he’s not as skilled a politician as McCarthy. But as I said, my impression is that his heart just isn’t in it.
As to why his not believing in it would not qualify him for a “deeper circle of hëll” than McCarthy, well, it’s unlikely McCarthy believed in what he was saying either; he simply had no compunctions whatsoever about destroying people with lies to further his career.
By your own account McCain chose to disregard his own notions of right and wrong. This literally disqualifies him as the former.
If he his own notions of right and wrong does not keep his behavior in check, he may as well not have them at all.
It’s pretty much an eternal moral debate whether what’s in one’s heart makes any difference as to how good or bad a person is. But I’m of the opinion that there are times when basically good people give into temptation and do bad things for selfish reasons, but their true nature ultimately prevents them from succeeding. I think we are seeing that here.
Mike wrote: He doesn’t believe in McCarthy, but he’s doing everything he can to show McCarthyism works? How does that not earn McCain a seat in a deeper circle of hëll?
Well, he’s not doing everything he can. In fact, by any measure, he’s doing a pretty half-assed job of it (and thus getting flak from hard-liners in his party). Now, some may say that simply means he’s not as skilled a politician as McCarthy. But as I said, my impression is that his heart just isn’t in it.
As to why his not believing in it would not qualify him for a “deeper circle of hëll” than McCarthy, well, it’s unlikely McCarthy believed in what he was saying either; he simply had no compunctions whatsoever about destroying people with lies to further his career.
By your own account McCain chose to disregard his own notions of right and wrong. This literally disqualifies him as the former.
If he his own notions of right and wrong does not keep his behavior in check, he may as well not have them at all.
It’s pretty much an eternal moral debate whether what’s in one’s heart makes any difference as to how good or bad a person is. But I’m of the opinion that there are times when basically good people give into temptation and do bad things for selfish reasons, but their true nature ultimately prevents them from succeeding. I think we are seeing that here.
What I’m really anxious to see, though, is what all the knuckleheads will do when, if Obama is elected, the world doesn’t implode. You know the knuckleheads I mean, the one’s who say things like, “You better get your bomb shelter ready and get get all the dried food you can if Obama gets elected…” or “When Obama gets elected, he’ll put UN troops on all of our street corners and we’ll be on house arrest.” Or even those people who think on some level that he’s a secret Muslim who will wheel in some “Arab Horse” and let radical extremeists invade our country or whatever other thing these knuckleheads believe.
They’ll do the exact same things the knuckleheads who kept insisting that Bush was about to institute the draft as part of his plan to send in the jackebooted thugs to jail all dissent before the inevitable invasion of Iraq etc etc. It will always be just around the corner…any day now…just trying to get us to lower our guard, take our eyes off the prize, lull us into a false sense of security…
They will never be wrong because the proof is always just over the horizon. And if you point out that it isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen they will shake their heads and remark on you naivete.
Similarly, when Obama wins, what will the people who think that we have slipped into a fascist dictatorship because of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. say when Obama does not dismantle said fascist apparatus? Nothing, probably. Except for the hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You’d think it would give them pause when Obama does not immediately bring those actually guilty of dynamiting the towers to justice but they will instead just announce that he’s also a part of the conspiracy. Too much invested in that idea to back down now.
Mad magazine had an article once YOU CAN’T WIN WITH A BIGOT, the point being people will turn their arguments on a dime to fit whatever happens, even if it totally contradicts what they said before.
GUY– The Mets are just 1 run behind!
BIGOT- Forget it! Washington’s up! Blacks always choke up in a clinch!
GUY- He hit a home run!
BIGOT- Sure, them guys are strong as oxes. Comes from all those years in the jungle.
WAITER- My tables about to leave.
BIGOT WAITER- Don’t get your hopes up. They’re Jews! They’ll stiff you the tip.
WAITER- They left me $100!
BIGOT WAITER- Sure, why not? They own all the money in the world!
And so on. Don’t look forward to seeing the shameless feel ashamed. Won’t happen.
What I’m really anxious to see, though, is what all the knuckleheads will do when, if Obama is elected, the world doesn’t implode. You know the knuckleheads I mean, the one’s who say things like, “You better get your bomb shelter ready and get get all the dried food you can if Obama gets elected…” or “When Obama gets elected, he’ll put UN troops on all of our street corners and we’ll be on house arrest.” Or even those people who think on some level that he’s a secret Muslim who will wheel in some “Arab Horse” and let radical extremeists invade our country or whatever other thing these knuckleheads believe.
They’ll do the exact same things the knuckleheads who kept insisting that Bush was about to institute the draft as part of his plan to send in the jackebooted thugs to jail all dissent before the inevitable invasion of Iraq etc etc. It will always be just around the corner…any day now…just trying to get us to lower our guard, take our eyes off the prize, lull us into a false sense of security…
They will never be wrong because the proof is always just over the horizon. And if you point out that it isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen they will shake their heads and remark on you naivete.
Similarly, when Obama wins, what will the people who think that we have slipped into a fascist dictatorship because of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. say when Obama does not dismantle said fascist apparatus? Nothing, probably. Except for the hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You’d think it would give them pause when Obama does not immediately bring those actually guilty of dynamiting the towers to justice but they will instead just announce that he’s also a part of the conspiracy. Too much invested in that idea to back down now.
Mad magazine had an article once YOU CAN’T WIN WITH A BIGOT, the point being people will turn their arguments on a dime to fit whatever happens, even if it totally contradicts what they said before.
GUY– The Mets are just 1 run behind!
BIGOT- Forget it! Washington’s up! Blacks always choke up in a clinch!
GUY- He hit a home run!
BIGOT- Sure, them guys are strong as oxes. Comes from all those years in the jungle.
WAITER- My tables about to leave.
BIGOT WAITER- Don’t get your hopes up. They’re Jews! They’ll stiff you the tip.
WAITER- They left me $100!
BIGOT WAITER- Sure, why not? They own all the money in the world!
And so on. Don’t look forward to seeing the shameless feel ashamed. Won’t happen.
Bill Myers: An aside: I’m watching “The Jim Lehrer Newshour” right now, and David Brooks just joked that even if Barack Obama pledged his allegiance to Al Qaeda during tonight’s debate he could still win the election. LOL!
Ah… He ripped it off from SNL. They actually had “Obama” say that in one of their debate spoofs.
The difference is one of degree rather than kind. The comparison is nevertheless valid: McCain is attempting to achieve power by linking Obama to Ayers through guilt by association. McCarthy simply took it further. Two things needn’t be identical to be similar.
But degree sometimes matters as much as kind. There are platforms in the Democratic Party that, if you discount degree, can be said to be exactly what Marx taught. You strongly support the CBLDF that fights for freedom of speech and basic first amendment rights. They’ve often had to defend comic shop owner from charges of obscenity. Critics of the CBLDF have claimed that they’re fighting to keep “pornography” and “obscenity” on the comic book shelves where kids can have access to it. Now, that’s utter bûllšhìŧ, but if you remove degree from that equation it’s harder to defend against it. After all, nudity is nudity and all nudity in comic books must be obscene.
Playboy used to be a magazine I collected the odd copy of in my youth. I liked the pictures. The articles could have been written in Sanskrit for all I cared. I had no problem with the layouts in Playboy and still find some of the collected works of some of the older photographers beautifully done works of art. I couldn’t stand Penthouse. The few I saw I found it to be vulgar and tasteless. The layouts were done in a way to appeal to the lowest common denominator and the overall effect was that it made the woman appear trashy rather than classy.
Both magazines had layouts of nude women. Both magazines had layouts of women who were fairly attractive. Both magazines were designed to appeal to men. Both were not the same in the degree of style to which they presented their models.
McCain has not reached the level of McCarthyism in overall tactics or in degree. Saying that he has, in my opinion, is both wrong and trivializes what McCarthyism truly was.
Bill Myers: An aside: I’m watching “The Jim Lehrer Newshour” right now, and David Brooks just joked that even if Barack Obama pledged his allegiance to Al Qaeda during tonight’s debate he could still win the election. LOL!
Ah… He ripped it off from SNL. They actually had “Obama” say that in one of their debate spoofs.
The difference is one of degree rather than kind. The comparison is nevertheless valid: McCain is attempting to achieve power by linking Obama to Ayers through guilt by association. McCarthy simply took it further. Two things needn’t be identical to be similar.
But degree sometimes matters as much as kind. There are platforms in the Democratic Party that, if you discount degree, can be said to be exactly what Marx taught. You strongly support the CBLDF that fights for freedom of speech and basic first amendment rights. They’ve often had to defend comic shop owner from charges of obscenity. Critics of the CBLDF have claimed that they’re fighting to keep “pornography” and “obscenity” on the comic book shelves where kids can have access to it. Now, that’s utter bûllšhìŧ, but if you remove degree from that equation it’s harder to defend against it. After all, nudity is nudity and all nudity in comic books must be obscene.
Playboy used to be a magazine I collected the odd copy of in my youth. I liked the pictures. The articles could have been written in Sanskrit for all I cared. I had no problem with the layouts in Playboy and still find some of the collected works of some of the older photographers beautifully done works of art. I couldn’t stand Penthouse. The few I saw I found it to be vulgar and tasteless. The layouts were done in a way to appeal to the lowest common denominator and the overall effect was that it made the woman appear trashy rather than classy.
Both magazines had layouts of nude women. Both magazines had layouts of women who were fairly attractive. Both magazines were designed to appeal to men. Both were not the same in the degree of style to which they presented their models.
McCain has not reached the level of McCarthyism in overall tactics or in degree. Saying that he has, in my opinion, is both wrong and trivializes what McCarthyism truly was.
As noted on NPR this morning, the McCain campaign’s decision to take public funds limit their spending capacity. Many of the ads that are linked to McCain are being funded not by the campaign itself, but the the RNC. Between them and the base Republicans, who for years have demonized their Democratic opponents (think Dukakis RE: his medical records, Willie Horton; Kerry RE: Swiftboat, etc.), McCain is stuck either acceding to his base, and basically conceding the election, or abandoning his base, losing support from his party and the fundraising behind the scenes, and basically conceding the election. He’s trying to play the middle, and is getting burned on both sides.
But, to compare what McCain is doing, which has been standard operating procedure in campaigning for years, with McCarthy, who was so prominent in the Red Scare as to have a political methodology named after him is absurd. As others have said, it little more than a Godwinism in a different form. The amount of degrees between a candidate villifying his opponent and a sitting senator ruining the lives and livelyhoods of numerous private individuals who had no reason to expect to be scrutinized by Congress is so vast as to make the comparison pure hyperbole.
Bill Mulligan: Similarly, when Obama wins, what will the people who think that we have slipped into a fascist dictatorship because of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. say when Obama does not dismantle said fascist apparatus? Nothing, probably
I fit that description, and if Obama doesn’t do something about at least one of those things I’m going to be very disappointed. Particularly Guantanamo. Both he and McCain said they wanted to shut the place down:
http://www.thestar.com/article/515112
It’s in the fourth paragraph from the bottom of that article.
We elect these guys to office so that they can DO something, so that things will change. It’s what Obama has been promising, and I hope he’s as good as his word. As good as his slogan.
Bill Mulligan: Similarly, when Obama wins, what will the people who think that we have slipped into a fascist dictatorship because of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. say when Obama does not dismantle said fascist apparatus? Nothing, probably
I fit that description, and if Obama doesn’t do something about at least one of those things I’m going to be very disappointed. Particularly Guantanamo. Both he and McCain said they wanted to shut the place down:
http://www.thestar.com/article/515112
It’s in the fourth paragraph from the bottom of that article.
We elect these guys to office so that they can DO something, so that things will change. It’s what Obama has been promising, and I hope he’s as good as his word. As good as his slogan.
Bill Mulligan: Similarly, when Obama wins, what will the people who think that we have slipped into a fascist dictatorship because of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. say when Obama does not dismantle said fascist apparatus? Nothing, probably.
I disagree. That’s one of the reasons that the Democrat controlled congress is sinking its approval ratings into the sewer. They talked a big game about reforming things and fixing the Bush mess and turned into The Get Along Gang once in power. With each vote that they caved on (telecommunications spying, torture, troop withdrawals, etc.) their supporters screamed at them and their critics laughed at them. If Obama fails to take certain steps, especially with his party being the majority in Congress, he’ll catch hëll from a lot of supporters.
Bill Mulligan: Similarly, when Obama wins, what will the people who think that we have slipped into a fascist dictatorship because of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc. say when Obama does not dismantle said fascist apparatus? Nothing, probably.
I disagree. That’s one of the reasons that the Democrat controlled congress is sinking its approval ratings into the sewer. They talked a big game about reforming things and fixing the Bush mess and turned into The Get Along Gang once in power. With each vote that they caved on (telecommunications spying, torture, troop withdrawals, etc.) their supporters screamed at them and their critics laughed at them. If Obama fails to take certain steps, especially with his party being the majority in Congress, he’ll catch hëll from a lot of supporters.
Wow, you should get a job with Obama’s campaign and write some shameful political ads for him.
You mean shameful like the very things McCain has done in his campaign?
9:39 Well, at least now McCain has firmly decided that he will make Ayers part of his campaign, and that he’ll say to Obama’s face the lie that he started his campaign in Ayers’ living room. So McCain’s a lying, grinning scumbag, but least now he’s decided to admit it openly in debate.
9:39 Well, at least now McCain has firmly decided that he will make Ayers part of his campaign, and that he’ll say to Obama’s face the lie that he started his campaign in Ayers’ living room. So McCain’s a lying, grinning scumbag, but least now he’s decided to admit it openly in debate.
Oops. Wrong board.
Oops. Wrong board.
Friends don’t let friends blog drunk.
Oops. Wrong board.
Friends don’t let friends blog drunk.
Brian Woods said:
“If you have any links feel free to post them, Pete, otherwise you are just sounding off.”
Just sounding off? Of course he is—it’s his blog! Duh.