Mr. Martin has a history of odd political ideas, from runs in political parties, both Republican and Democrat, and based on such interesting beliefs as "Stopping the Jewish power that runs the country" to standard Florida politics. He's a want-to-be lawyer who's psychiatric profile won't allow him to be selected for the bar, but his overindulgence in suing people has him banned from being party to any non-pre-approved litigation.
So if you want to know where the Arab-Obama meme started, where the facts emerged from, look to Mr. Martin and perhaps pity him, and us, just a little
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What year were black people given 'the right' to vote?
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
depends my perception of events may be clouded from reading Harry Turtledove novels but i think many northern states had given the right on their own and that it was only done nationwise by amendment in 60's.
IP: Logged |
quote:What year were black people given 'the right' to vote?
Ohh, poignant!
quote:depends my perception of events may be clouded from reading Harry Turtledove novels but i think many northern states had given the right on their own and that it was only done nationwise by amendment in 60's.
You know, Blayne, as someone who speaks so regularly and authoritatively on American politics, you really should have a better understanding than that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you are only sort of right. Black people were given the right to vote after the civil war. It was made explicit in the 15th amendment in 1870. However, there were lots of ways that black people were kept from voting, especially in the South. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and out and out violence. The Voting Rights Act in 1965 remedied some of this.
There is still some systemic disenfranchisement going on and I think that we still need to be vigilant about protecting the rights of black people (and poor people) to vote.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to know where "liberal activists don't have jobs" meme got started. In the video Strider links to, all these people lined up to get in to hear McCain are telling people who are lined up (presumably holding anti-McCain signs) to get a job. Why is it that people who are attending a political rally presume that other people who are at the same event but for different reasons must be unemployed?
And this isn't a one off. I've participated in lots of progressive political rallies and "get a job" is one of the most common insults thrown. I'm a very busy person. I often work 12 hour days and at least part of the weekend. I get up at 5 am to teach a seminary class, volunteer with a number of civic groups. When I take time out of my schedule to participate in a political event, its because I consider it important to take a stand, important enough to make the time for it. I presume that most people both liberal and conservative are the same.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I didn't get that either Rabbit. Like it's assumed that the people there to see McCain have just taken time out of their busy day to be there, and the people there who support Obama have nothing better to do with their time.
oh, and in reference to "presumably holding anti-McCain signs", at the end of the video you see them, and while there are some anti-McCain signs they are mostly pro-Obama signs.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Yeah, I didn't get that either Rabbit. Like it's assumed that the people there to see McCain have just taken time out of their busy day to be there, and the people there who support Obama have nothing better to do with their time.
It's not so much that I don't get it. Its part of a really insidious liberal stereotype that really angers me. Several years ago my husband and I were scout master and assistant scout master for a boy scout troop. We were at a winter camporee where I happened to walk in on a conversation between two other adult leaders. The one was explaining to the other why he was no longer as involved in the Christian Coalition. He explained that although he hadl started the chapter of CC in his town, his wife had recently had a child and his work responsibilities had increased so he'd had to cut back on the time he spent with CC. He then followed this by saying "It's really not fair because liberals don't have these kinds of conflicts." He was seriously arguing that Liberals don't have families or jobs or churches or responsibilities like "real" people.
This attempt to dehumanize the opposition really angers me no matter which side it comes from. This is the first step in every war, every genocidal act, every crime against humanity. When you allow yourselves to believe that the opposition doesn't share the basic human needs, desires and responsibilities that you have, you have opened the door to something really ugly.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:oh, and in reference to "presumably holding anti-McCain signs", at the end of the video you see them, and while there are some anti-McCain signs they are mostly pro-Obama signs.
Yeah but in this context (a McCain rally), a pro-Obama sign is virtually equivalent to an anti-McCain sign except that is a bit more up beat. I don't think that distinction is particularly relevant to the kind of people who were making these comments.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
true, my intent in pointing that out was simply to state that if the Obama supporters were standing there holding a bunch of signs attacking McCain(and hurling insults), I'd be just as disappointed and disgusted with them.
Though what gets me about the video is twofold. One side of it is the attacks, the other side is the ignorance.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the hell do McCain supporters sing "God Bless America," or at the rallies chant "USA USA!" as a hand in hand measure to denounce Obama and prop up McCain? Specifically at the RNC convention when they did it to drown out the protesters? I mean, were they attempting to choke the protesters with the irony of drowning out dissent by chanting "USA USA"?
The thing about most of these people, if I had to guess is, even if Hillary Clinton was McCain's actual opponent, or someone else even, if the attack wasn't "Terrorist" and "Muslim" it'd just be something else. I think these are people that would never vote for a Democrat, and these are just this year's party lines, so they are repeating them like good little Republican foot soldiers. Some of this isn't McCain's fault directly, but he doesn't seem very interested in stopping it. There might have been a little bit of "Obama's a terrorist" before Palin started her ranting, if only because some people think both that he is a Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, ergo, Obama = Terrorist, but I don't think it would be as amped up as it is. But there is a broader war going on out there than just what McCain says in public statements. There are mailings, emails, advertisements, etc all going out to people to help formulate opinions outside of what CNN covers. I don't think he is responsible for what every person supporting him says, but his tacit approval of their behavior is enough to tarnish him I think.
If I were to guess what a line at the typical Obama rally was like, I'b bet you might get one or two people shouting something at protesters, but the Democratic side doesn't really have the one liner attacks that the Republicans do. Besides, shouting "eight more years of Bush's failed policies!" doesn't really have the same ring to it that "he's a terrorist" does. Even in the unofficial slogans we see the difference between an attempt at debate and an attempt to shut it down. I'm not sure how it'd go between the camera/interviewer guy and the average Democratic supporters. I think plenty of them would just regurgitate the campaign literature, like those people were doing, but I really think it would be mostly (true or untrue) policy related issues, rather than personal attacks.
The "get a job" thing I think has its roots in the 60's and 70's with Democratic students protesting this and that. I think "get a job" was a common attack against them, and it's just stuck and spread to all liberals everywhere. Which is ironic when you consider that without unions, Democrats probably wouldn't get elected in most places.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing about most of these people, if I had to guess is, even if Hillary Clinton was McCain's actual opponent, or someone else even, if the attack wasn't "Terrorist" and "Muslim" it'd just be something else. I think these are people that would never vote for a Democrat, and these are just this year's party lines, so they are repeating them like good little Republican foot soldiers. Some of this isn't McCain's fault directly, but he doesn't seem very interested in stopping it. There might have been a little bit of "Obama's a terrorist" before Palin started her ranting, if only because some people think both that he is a Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, ergo, Obama = Terrorist, but I don't think it would be as amped up as it is. But there is a broader war going on out there than just what McCain says in public statements. There are mailings, emails, advertisements, etc all going out to people to help formulate opinions outside of what CNN covers. I don't think he is responsible for what every person supporting him says, but his tacit approval of their behavior is enough to tarnish him I think.
I think its more than tacit approval its strategy. Yes the letters and e-mails claiming Obama is a closet Muslim and was raised in a terrorist cell pre-date Palin's accusation that Obama "pals around with terrorists" and the McCain "too risky add". But I'm not generous enough to think its coincidence that those moves have fanned the flames. You can't use the word terrorist in 2008 and not have people think of Al Qaeda and 9/11. I sincerely doubt that even one person on hearing Palin make the comment that Obama "pals around with terrorists" didn't think of 911 and doubt that there more than a handful whose initial reaction was that she was referring to a University Professor and respected educational scholar who was accused but never charged or comvicted of domestic terrorism 40 years ago.
If it wasn't the intent of McCain and Palin to arouse fears that Obama has ties with Islamic terrorists, they need to strongly denounce those who have drawn that conclusion and apologize for what ever influence their comments and ads have had on these vicious and hatefilled rumors.
I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Also, Steven, would you stop that? Hatrack can only sustain a limited amount of irony in any given day. You're taking way more than your share."
You don't let shit go, do you, buddy?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Dems should just respond to the terrorist thing with "McCain's old!"
Often they have, and they really shouldn't do it in the manner they have done in the past. Back in 2000 Republicans more or less bandied about those same ideas, that McCain was so old he might be a bit crazy and unstable. It was a terrible thing to watch, and I wish McCain had been elected in 2000.
Lyrhawn: I agree the chants of USA USA seem like empty statements of patriotism. Although invoking patriotism as a way to stifle decent is as old as civilization I think there is a more recent dynamic at work. When people were protesting for civil rights in the 60's as well as against our involvement in Vietnam, at it's most fevered pitch were statements about America being out and out evil. Nixon saw the potential for taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment and gave his speech about the, "Silent majority." He quickly and efficiently portrayed protesters as long haired, dirty, jobless, promiscuous, drug addicted, ingrates, who were also the mouth piece of liberalism. Nixon also portrayed himself as the champion of average Joe's with a family, a full time job, community ties, religious convictions, and patriotism.
So to answer liberalism's, "G** D*** America!" Republicans started wearing flag pins on their lapels, and chanting, "USA! USA!" As if being patriotic meant you supported Nixon, whereas if you hated America you'd support the other guy. So it's little surprise to me that the anti-war protesters at the RNC were escorted out amidst chants of USA! USA! Many of those in the crowd would certainly remember Nixon's campaign.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think originally it was tacit approval. Remember a LOT of this stuff started long before Obama had won the Democratic primary. In fact it started long before the voting had even started in the Democratic primary. I think it's somewhat farfetched to believe that the GOP, planning ahead of time for an unlikely Obama victory started digging for dirt and spreading rumors about him. There were no such rumors about candidates that in September of 07 were more viable than he was, namely Edwards, that weren't frontrunners.
When McCain and Obama officially became their parties' nominees, McCain did nothing to combat what was already out there, and probably didn't think that it was his job to do so. I'd sort of agree with that, but not really. Obama had to give a major address on race early on in his official campaign due to a large number of things that weren't his fault. I think McCain was responsible for giving a similar address to his supporters early on dispelling some of the myths about Obama and saying that he wanted to run a clean campaign against him. I think such an expectation is perfectly in keeping with our perceptions of 2000 McCain. Not doing so doesn't mean active support or encouragement, but it is tacit approval of their actions. He didn't vocally support them, but he also didn't speak out against them.
But when push came to shove and his polling numbers started tanking after the Palin stunt fizzled by mid September, he started really actively ratcheting up the rhetoric to stoke angry, visceral reactions from people over issues like terrorism. I think the RNC is responsible for maybe 80% of what is out there, with Palin and McCain taking advantage of that with the other 20%, but McCain is the leader of his party now, for better or for worse, and he's done nothing that can be ascertained to combat the actions of the party he's in charge of.
quote:But I'm not generous enough to think its coincidence that those moves have fanned the flames.
Me neither. I think it has certainly, intentionally fanned those flames. I guess my point was more that he didn't start the fire. He just added more wood and started making smores.
But people's opinions are formed in considerably wider atmospheres than just public speeches that McCain and Palin make, most of which are totally unseen by the majority of Americans. I think the number of gossipy emails treated as factual that get passed around and read by the average person would far supercede the amount of information gotten from campaign events where McCain and Palin give speeches for those same average people. The same with internet sites devoted to delivering false information.
quote:I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.
Me neither. There ARE rumors starting to percolate that the McCain campaign has one last gasp effort coming in the next couple of days. The idea goes that they'll totally try and change the dynamic of their campaign by a wholesale change in their rhetoric and pledges to run a clean campaign. The idea is that this will allow them to push the "Maverick" angle because the RNC wants them to be even MORE aggressive in their attacks against Obama. I think that whole idea is fraught with stupidity. It hinges on the hope that it won't be painted as yet another erratic move. And I think it tacitly admits that their campaign was in fact negative before hand, otherwise why would they have to make a pledge to run a clean one?
I can't imagine he'd make such a move, especially since, quite frankly, his unfounded attacks really are probably the best chance he has to win. If he can keep it up, and then cross his fingers and hope that a still living bin Laden comes out with a message denouncing McCain and/or supporting Obama (which actually isn't outside the realm of possibility or probability) or some other such surprise even, or that the DOW has a couple more days like today (especially with gas prices falling like a rock), then people will stop caring about the economy so much and start paying more attention to the fact that Obama is a baby killing super SUPER liberal Arab Muslim terrorist loving commie who hates America and wants the government to control every single thing you do. When you're down 8 points, flinging mud and hoping for the best probably looks like a pretty attractive option, though it seems pretty silly when you've been doing it since you were down 2-3 points and it has only made things worse.
But that certainaly explains all the bumper stickers that say: McCain 08: Vote Cognitive Dissonance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I were to guess what a line at the typical Obama rally was like, I'b bet you might get one or two people shouting something at protesters, but the Democratic side doesn't really have the one liner attacks that the Republicans do. Besides, shouting "eight more years of Bush's failed policies!" doesn't really have the same ring to it that "he's a terrorist" does. Even in the unofficial slogans we see the difference between an attempt at debate and an attempt to shut it down. I'm not sure how it'd go between the camera/interviewer guy and the average Democratic supporters. I think plenty of them would just regurgitate the campaign literature, like those people were doing, but I really think it would be mostly (true or untrue) policy related issues, rather than personal attacks.
My wife and I attended an Obama rally here in Vegas last month and I didn't see or hear anyone making any hateful remarks toward republicans. Of course, it was a big rally, so I'm sure there may have been some of that.
One thing that really stood out to me was the diversity of the crowd. There were plenty of white, black, hispanic and even Asian people present. And a huge number of young people. When I was living back in Pennsylvania I attended a couple Republican rallies that my cousin was involved with (he was a state congressman there) and there certainly wasn't nearly the diversity (granted, Vegas is more diverse in general than that area of Pennsylvania, but still...).
This weekend my wife and I also spent some time at the local Obama campaign headquarters on the phones and prepping flier packets and again, no hate talk there.
I grew up in a very Christian protestant conservative community, and I personally know some people who sound very much like the people you hear calling Obama a terrorist/Muslim/the anti-christ (and think Palin is GREAT!!!). I even respect a few of them who are otherwise intelligent people. The problem that I see with that demographic is that they confuse American politics with their religious beliefs. I understand voting for moral convictions, but I don't think any politician is going to lead this country into the kind of "religious" kingdom they seem to want, nor, in my opinion, should they.
quote:Lyrhawn: I agree the chants of USA USA seem like empty statements of patriotism. Although invoking patriotism as a way to stifle decent is as old as civilization I think there is a more recent dynamic at work. When people were protesting for civil rights in the 60's as well as against our involvement in Vietnam, at it's most fevered pitch were statements about America being out and out evil. Nixon saw the potential for taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment and gave his speech about the, "Silent majority." He quickly and efficiently portrayed protesters as long haired, dirty, jobless, promiscuous, drug addicted, ingrates, who were also the mouth piece of liberalism. Nixon also portrayed himself as the champion of average Joe's with a family, a full time job, community ties, religious convictions, and patriotism.
So you are claiming that Nixon is responsible for the Liberal's don't work meme? I'm willing to blame him for starting it, who are the people who keep perpetuating it?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think originally it was tacit approval. Remember a LOT of this stuff started long before Obama had won the Democratic primary. In fact it started long before the voting had even started in the Democratic primary. I think it's somewhat farfetched to believe that the GOP, planning ahead of time for an unlikely Obama victory started digging for dirt and spreading rumors about him
I don't have even the slightest suspicion that the McCain campaign or the GOP started the Obama is a Muslim Terrorist rumors -- I just think that they are deliberately stoking the fire and fanning the flames. I find it a genuine pity that so many Americans believe this sort of crap, are not knowledge enough to know these things are lies and not motivated enough to do the minute amount of research it would take to check the facts.
I am also sorely disappointed that so few Americans, particularly those in the news media, are letting McCain get away with this. Forget about the details of Bill Ayers history and his association with Obama and ask the real question.
"John McCain when your running mate and your ads claimed that Obama was a close friend of terrorists, did you anticipate that so many people would associate that with the 9/11 attacks and link it to the untruthful rumors claiming that Obama was raised in a Muslim terrorist cell? If not, why haven't you publicly renounced these associations and the people who make them explicitly at your rallies? How could you miss the fact that for the last 7 years it has been impossible to use the word terrorist without evoking images of the 9/11 attacks and Islamic terrorism? Are you really that out of touch or are you trying to cash in on peoples fears and racial hatred.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Me neither. I think it has certainly, intentionally fanned those flames. I guess my point was more that he didn't start the fire. He just added more wood and started making smores.
Great, now I'm imagining John McCain in Billy Joel's place for the music video of 'We didn't start the fire.'
As far as that video is concerned. It makes me sad that the most vocal McCain supporters in the crowd's arguments were so ill-informed, but... what can you do? It's so easy to disprove those allegations, but for the vocal crowd, they just won't listen.
Note, that isn't a jab at all McCain supporters, just the ranting and raving ones in the line. I think there are many well informed McCain supporters who base it off policy and not baseless fear mongering. I just wish they'd become louder than the others.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyrhawn: I agree the chants of USA USA seem like empty statements of patriotism. Although invoking patriotism as a way to stifle decent is as old as civilization I think there is a more recent dynamic at work. When people were protesting for civil rights in the 60's as well as against our involvement in Vietnam, at it's most fevered pitch were statements about America being out and out evil. Nixon saw the potential for taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment and gave his speech about the, "Silent majority." He quickly and efficiently portrayed protesters as long haired, dirty, jobless, promiscuous, drug addicted, ingrates, who were also the mouth piece of liberalism. Nixon also portrayed himself as the champion of average Joe's with a family, a full time job, community ties, religious convictions, and patriotism.
So you are claiming that Nixon is responsible for the Liberal's don't work meme? I'm willing to blame him for starting it, who are the people who keep perpetuating it?
Don't mess with what worked so well in the past. I think when Obama wins, and assuming he wins reelection, we will see Republicans run a different sort of campaign. Negativity and character assassination attempts were at an all time high with Obama, but it just did not work. Liberal hating also did not work, and Obama again would have been a traditionally good target for that. BTW now that I've read my previous post over I realize that in no place did I state that I really dislike Nixon for using that tactic.
I REALLY don't like Nixon.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sort of amusing, in a dark humored sort of way... First Palin says at the debate that she's there to speak to the American public, not to respond to what the moderator or her opponent say (apparently calling into question the good governor's understanding of the word "debate"), then McCain's campaign announces- announces!- That it isn't going to talk about the economic crisis. It would lapse over dark humor into sheer farce if there weren't a decent number of idiots that such tactics might actually work on...
Why must democracy sometimes seem to hinge on people with the receptiveness of a lonely puppy and the attention span of a goldfish?...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So just to sum up the direction that this thread, and the news media, are taking?
"Republicans are a bunch of frothy mouthed hate mongers. Aren't we a sweet bunch of people for not being name callers? I'm so glad we aren't negative in our feelings towards other people like those awful, awful Republicans."
But just think back to the Bush-Kerry election, when shots were fired into a republican campaign headquarters in Nashville Tennesee, protestors ransacked a campaign headquarters in Florida--man, the anti-Bush stuff got serious. Not just at campaign rallies, but all over. Way more intense than the "Anti-Obama" hatred that so much is being made of.
The fact is, anger and frustration are more a symptom of whatever side feels they've got more to prove, feels more desperate. Last time it was Kerry supporters. This time it's McCain's. Next time, who knows what it will be.
But, hey, what do I know?
McCain proabably really is the hate mongerer who is egging all these folks on, that he'd be happy to hear potential voters are being yelled at outside his rallies.
posted
"Why must democracy sometimes seem to hinge on people with the receptiveness of a lonely puppy and the attention span of a goldfish?"
Cuz within that group are the exact same people who are most easily goaded into violence when they feel they are being ignored. Elections are the means of having a continuous revolution by "ballots instead of bullets." Personally I'd rather be the target of ridiculous insults than a random victim of terrorism.
A large difference may be, and I could be wrong, that if Obama spoke against burning signs and using graffiti at one of his rallies, he wouldn't be booed by his own supporters.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
A large difference may be, and I could be wrong, that if Obama spoke against burning signs and using graffiti at one of his rallies, he wouldn't be booed by his own supporters.
The are plenty of stupid angry and mean people on all sides of politics. The real difference here is that Obama isn't running an ad campaign that paints Sarah Palin as a religious wacko who wants to start Armageddon and Biden isn't giving speeches at rallies that are obviously designed to provoke fear and hatred of old people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
But just think back to the Bush-Kerry election, when shots were fired into a republican campaign headquarters in Nashville Tennesee, protestors ransacked a campaign headquarters in Florida--man, the anti-Bush stuff got serious. Not just at campaign rallies, but all over. Way more intense than the "Anti-Obama" hatred that so much is being made of.
There's an important difference between the examples you describe and the events decried by others in this thread. None of your examples happened at rallies led by the Democratic candidates.
I think most reasonable folks can admit that there are nutjobs on both sides. What people are objecting to here is not that Republicans are particularly overzealous or violently inclined, but rather, that the McCain campaign has, for the past few weeks, all but openly stoked those flames. When Palin claims that "Obama pals around with terrorists," and then allows shouts of "Kill him!" to go unanswered, she is playing to the mob mentality in a truly dangerous (and IMO despicable) way. Nothing approaching such fearmongering has, to my knowledge, ever occurred at any Obama or Biden rally.
I give John McCain some credit for trying to rein this behavior in during the past few days, but I agree with the others that bandaging a wound days afterward does not make up for having allowed that wound to bleed out and fester in the first place. You complain about anti-conservative media bias? How about the media claiming some sort of equivalency between these rallies and Obama making statements criticizing McCain's erratic behavior of late? That somehow this indicates that both campaigns have turned equally negative - how again is that "fair and balanced"?
Someone earlier made the cogent observation that virtually every major speech at the Democratic National Convention (including both Obama's and Biden's) included a significant segment dedicated to praising John McCain's heroism and sacrifices in Vietnam. No similar acknowledgment of Obama's character was ever made by their Republican counterparts until this past week, when people began to genuinely fear for Obama's safety. That in itself should tell you something.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And everyone's been more than understanding of Sarah Palin.
I see a world of difference between the kind of malicious lies that republican volunteers are spreading about Obama and the criticisms people are making about Sarah Palin.
Let me give an example. When Palin was first nominated, there was a rumor going around the blogosphere that her infant son was actually the son of her 16 year old daughter. The rumor was quickly refuted and has completely disappeared. In contrast, the rumor that Obama is a Muslim continues to be circulated and believed even after the big up roar over Obama's pastor that should have made it obvious to everyone that he was a member of a Christian Church.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Folks, you're not arguing against what I said. You're telling me that McCain supporters are more vitriolic right now. I never argued that. I made a couple of offhand comments about how there are nutjubs doing crazy stuff on the left, too, but my main point was this:
That it's always the candidate who's on bottom who goes negative, and it's always the candidate who's on bottom whose supporters, out of frustration, become crazier and crazier.
The party that's more popular generally gets the benifit of taking the high road.
Besides, Obama has a distinct advantage in trying to look like he's taking the high road in this election. The hatred he gets to tap into is the anti-George Bush hatred. He can say nice things about John McCain, and use the anti Bush sentiment to get elected.
If it had been Cheney running, do you really think the Democratic rallies would have come across as this cordial?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems more likely that a Republican operative tossed out that rumor of Palin adopting her own grandchild in hopes that some Democratic partisan IDIOTs would spread the lie. Cuz after all the brouhaha generated turns out to based on purely malicious gossip, nobody cares when her unwed daughter turns up pregnant. The only folks who woulda cared are those who vote Republican, and they've already been maneuvered into defending Palin and her daughter.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Onion reports a possible game-changer for McCain:
quote:WASHINGTON—With Republican nominee John McCain continuing to flounder at the polls, the unknown force that orders the universe announced yesterday that Scott Bakula has entered the body of the struggling Arizona senator in order to "help him out of a real jam."
Bakula, who was last seen jumping from the body of a fighter pilot he helped to escape the Bermuda Triangle, will reportedly spend the next three days in the 72-year-old's body, where he will attempt to solve the financial crisis and learn to respect the opinions of young people. Bakula will then be jolted unexpectedly through time into a 1950s-era African-American man, before next landing in the body of a free-loving female Woodstock attendee who must make a very difficult decision about abortion.
Witnesses said they first detected a difference in McCain's demeanor yesterday, when he paused suddenly in the middle of a speech about Obama's tax policies, shook his head and demanded to know what year it was. Others were reportedly confused when McCain abruptly left the stage to find a mirror and softly touched his face while whispering to himself, "Oh, boy. Who am I this time?"
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Folks, you're not arguing against what I said. You're telling me that McCain supporters are more vitriolic right now.
Wrong. You should re-read our posts. We are criticizing the McCain campaign's handling of their more vitriolic supporters (i.e. barely stopping short of egging them on). Hell, I specifically said in my post that both sides have nutjobs, and never made any claims about their relative number.
Again, let me reiterate: both sides have loonies. That is not the issue. The issue is how the two campaigns have dealt with their respective loonies. And there is absolutely zero equivalency there.
quote:That it's always the candidate who's on bottom who goes negative, and it's always the candidate who's on bottom whose supporters, out of frustration, become crazier and crazier.
The party that's more popular generally gets the benifit of taking the high road.
Perhaps so, but that doesn't justify the Republican party leadership taking the low road themselves.
Being down by three runs in the bottom of the eighth does not make it permissible to allow your fans to shout death threats against the other team's manager.
quote:Besides, Obama has a distinct advantage in trying to look like he's taking the high road in this election. The hatred he gets to tap into is the anti-George Bush hatred. He can say nice things about John McCain, and use the anti Bush sentiment to get elected.
The "high road" Obama is taking has nothing to do with attacking George Bush versus John McCain. It's in directing his attacks towards Bush and McCain's policies rather than their character. And unfortunately for the Republicans, it seems that this sort of issues-based campaign is what resonates with the majority of voters this year. Swift-boating doesn't work quite as well in 2008 as it did in 2004. And thank god for that.
quote:If it had been Cheney running, do you really think the Democratic rallies would have come across as this cordial? [/QB]
Probably not, but since he isn't, this point is sort of irrelevant. Regardless, I doubt that an Obama supporter shouting "Kill Cheney" or shouting racial epithets at a Fox News reporter would have been tolerated by the folks running the campaign.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Folks, you're not arguing against what I said. You're telling me that McCain supporters are more vitriolic right now. I never argued that. I made a couple of offhand comments about how there are nutjubs doing crazy stuff on the left, too, but my main point was this:
That it's always the candidate who's on bottom who goes negative, and it's always the candidate who's on bottom whose supporters, out of frustration, become crazier and crazier.
Well... It's worth pointing out the famous example of the geurilla reporters who went to a Bush rally in Kerry t-shirts, and vice versa, and the respective receptions they received.
But then, it may not be an apropos example; the Bush-Kerry race was actually quite close, and many Kerry supporters thought up until the last moment that their candidate would win.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Cuz within that group are the exact same people who are most easily goaded into violence when they feel they are being ignored. Elections are the means of having a continuous revolution by "ballots instead of bullets." Personally I'd rather be the target of ridiculous insults than a random victim of terrorism.
*sigh* Yeah, I know. Like so many things, though, I can't help but wish that the notion of democratic election based on the wise concensus of an informed electorate didn't seem to be such a distant dream.
To be clear, I realize there are real reasons that one could believe that voting for McCain is in the best interests of the country, though I disagree with the idea. I just get frustrated with people who seem to take each new sound bite at face value.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't even begin to count the ways this guy is wrong.
quote: “There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,” said Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport.
And why would a campaign invite someone to speak at a rally if they are going to "distance themselves" afterward? Did they not vet this guy or his remarks beforehand? This is not some random rally attender. This is a guy that someone invited to speak.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If elected, Obama has a chance to start something new and special. Will he or can he I don't know, but i do feel he has the chance, he is a fresh start for 50% of Americans, and a fresh face for the world. His party has no real, theme, message of foundation at the moment, Obama would be given the chance to create one and lead his people.
If elected, Mccain will be forced to re-inforce the old tradition ways. Tax cuts, big business, military pissing contests, fighting for the unborn, and throwing stones at homosexuals. His own party doesnt like him very much, so i doubt they will really be swayed by what ever maverick ideas he has. The base on his and republican economics is, Big business provides jobs, and Rich people pay sooo much more in taxes than poor people, so they need the most help. This doesnt work in a 10 corporations run the world scenario.
Obama has a chance to change the world, Mccain doesn't.
I'm not saying he will, but it is one of the reasons I am voting for him.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:*sigh* Yeah, I know. Like so many things, though, I can't help but wish that the notion of democratic election based on the wise concensus of an informed electorate didn't seem to be such a distant dream.
I know the feeling.
Sometimes I wonder what things would be like if we didn't run elections as democratically as we do now, and instead ran them as more of the republic that the founders envisioned. We might not have direct elections in this country, but we might as well. Citizens never used to directly elect Senators, state legislatures did that. In the initial election (Washington), there weren't parties, and Vice presidents didn't run with presidents as a ticket. The founders figured that the leading statesmen of the day would all run, to be chosen by the smartest or best informed people chosen by their peers to choose the president, which would be the electoral college. Should the president die, then the second most qualified person would step in, and the whole notion of unknown and unqualified VPs would never have come into existance, and in fact might have forestalled some of the worst presidencies in our history, like Tyler and Andrew Johnson, and would have made a Palin VP run a near impossibility, at least in 2008.
Major political parties totally ruined the form of republican democracy that the founders envisioned, and we all took the ball and ran with it from there. I'm not saying that the original form was necessarily better, in fact I think with some adjustments our current system could be better, but as it is? I think when we get good presidents it has more to do with luck than with good decision making skills on the part of the electorate. Lincoln wasn't elected because he was the best qualified, that probably would have been Seward, but he was the most electable high profile person in the Republican party, and he ended up being possibly the best man for the job and the country, and one of our best presidents ever. We got lucky. We got lucky with FDR too. Maybe we'll get lucky this time around, I don't know.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have serious problems returning to a more republican format for electing the President. Its a highly elitist concept and given the way things work, I suspect that the electoral college wouldn't consist of the smartest and most well informed but rather of the richest and most well connected which would be a disaster.
I think we'd do much better with a genuine direct election of the President but I'd like to see a non-partisan election the way many mayoral elections are held. Rather than having parties nominate their candidates who are then given a spot on the general election ballot, we would have one nation wide primary held about 2 months before the general election. Everyone regardless of party affiliation would have to petition to be on the primary ballot. If parties wanted to endorse a candidate, they could but they would have no authority to prevent other party members from being on the primary ballot and no recognition of their endorsement on the ballot itself. The primary would be an instant run off election, and the top two candidates would then select running mates and be placed on the final election ballot.
I know its unlikely to ever happen, but I think it would lead to less partisanship and a more diverse slate of candidates. Since candidates wouldn't have to cater to a particular party to be nominated, I think we'd get more genuine centrists and more candidates who actually think for themselves rather than regurgitate a party platform that is the marriage of strange bedfellows. We might, for example, get a candidate who was antiabortion and anti-death penalty, or a candidate who favored gun rights and lower military spending.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think when Obama wins
I don't believe in jinxing...but don't jinx it!
My political analysis teacher Dr. Jay DeSart coauthored a statistical projection of this years election with Dr. Thomas Holbrook that actually made it's way to the Wall Street Journal's online blog.
99.99% in a statistical study is pretty decisive, you should see the angry responses on KSL's website. Apparently cold emotionless math can still be railed at.
As for his reliability, he predicted Bush winning the race last election within .4% of the actual vote. He also predicted the percentage of Gore's popular vote in 2000.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if they accounted for the difference between Obama's polls and the actual votes he tended to get in the primaries. I've been subtracting about 5 points from anything the polls say.
I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absentee Ballot sent in today. Hoping to turn Virginia blue.
According that site, Obama's forecasted to get only 52.95% of the popular vote. Regardless of who wins, this country is still a house divided.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
