Log in

No account? Create an account
Presidential Politics - More Bullshit 
15th-Mar-2008 10:34 pm
The Moderate Voice has a post called Much Ado About Jeremiah Wright, about Obama's pastor who recently made some inflammatory remarks. The right-wing nutosphere is getting all frothy about it, as per the usual, but it's all playing out on the same double standard they always use. For starters, not one of them said shit when John McCain got John Hagee, THAT intolerably nightmarish fat fuck to shill for him. Also, not one of them is addressing him in his vehement disagreement with Wright.

When Geraldine Ferraro made those ridiculously stupid comments about Obama's race, Clinton's response to that new thorn in her campaign's ass was mild by comparison, and Pam asks "Has the Clinton team gone stark raving mad?" If it's not his race, it's his religion. It is still astounding to me, just how much more stupid conservative Americans are than I first thought. Even after all of the debunking of the Obama Muslim lie, it's still being bought by these fucking loons. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked respondents what Barack Obama's religion is. Among registered voters, 37 percent said Protestant. Two percent said Catholic, two percent said "other," two percent said "none." Forty-four percent said they weren't sure or refused to answer. Thirteen percent answered "Muslim." This is just one poll, by the way - many didn't even give an answer. Still, 13%. IDIOTS!

I found an interesting piece on The Reaction on whether or not Hillary Clinton is a theocrat. It exerpts a piece on Mother Jones questioning her religious politics. Lengthy read, but take the time. Lastly on the Hillary and Ferrarogate, I'll leave it in the capable hands of Keith Olbermann:
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant, and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro… your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become President.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become President.

In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media, and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama.

You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.

But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning, as if Barack Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican.
...and he didn't even really address much of the 3AM ad and the suggestions that even McCain would be a better choice in Hilary's view than Obama. Well, I suppose she thinks it's a wise strategy considering he is a greater challenge to her run than McCain is. Maybe it is, who knows.
(Deleted comment)
16th-Mar-2008 10:58 pm (UTC)
I'm afraid you make too much light of this situation. He "vehemently disagrees" with Rev. Wright. Ok. Hear ya. However, what no one seems to be asking or addressing is the simple fucking matter that he's had a TWENTY-YEAR relationship with this "nutjob."
Actually, I think you and perhaps many others are making too much light of this situation, but I do understand why you find it so illuminating. This has been the topic of conversation by all of the Fox News bobbleheads since it began, and what you';re saying isn't that far off from what Chris Wallace was saying just this morning on FNS. So he's had a 20 year relationship with Wright - I've had a 37 year relationship with all sorts of avowed and even closet racists within my own family, and I can read between the lines and think for myself on such matters.

Do mean to tell me that you actually believe the comments we've seen as of this weekend were isolated incidents? No. Don't fool yourself. You don't have that level of hate in your heart for "whiter america" for just one or two weekends. Give me a break.
I've suggested nothing of the sort, I think perhaps that's projection on your part. Analyzing the content of some of Wright's points, I don't disagree with him:
In brief, Wright has said that the U.S. government gives drugs to and builds prisons for blacks, that blacks should sing “God Damn America,” not “God Bless America,” and that it was America’s own terrorism that brought on the attacks of 9/11.

Now, to be fair, some of what Wright said is fair game. Like it or not — and the truth hurts — the U.S. did drop atomic bombs on Japan, killing tens of thousands, and the U.S. has supported some rather nasty regimes throughout its history, notably during the Cold War years but also during the present so-called war on terror. Is there a connection between America’s foreign policy and what happened on 9/11? Yes. Osama bin Laden himself has said so quite clearly again and again. Does that excuse what happened on 9/11? Of course not.
I think it's MORE THAN FAIR to ask how significantly Senator Obama has been influenced by this racist. Did I mention the TWENTY YEAR relationship?
Fair to ask? Oh absolutely - it's fair rto ask such questions of any candidate. What bothers me is the assumption of anyone that Barack Obama is somehow a guilt-by-association racist because this one old black guy (who probably has earned his anger as a result of being around for segregation and racial injustice, and is giving in to it occasionally) because I think it is a cheap and easy shot, to say nothing of weak on behalf of those asking it with motives beyond having it dismissed as a non-issue. It amounts to trying to paint him into a corner as a means of discrediting him when nothing else seems to be working - otherwise, such venom would be kept to more pertinent and realistic issues. The question suggests how much he has been influenced to BE racist, not how much he's been infulenced away from that sort of thinking - or what moral lessons he's learned in this two decade period. It's designed specifically to vilify him as a racist, which is pure nonsense. To believe that Barack Obama is a racist is pathetic at best, laughable at worst.

And people think Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth? Screw reading between the lines... you're being spoken too directly by this close affiliate of Obama. And that's much ado, eh?
Well, frankly, yes - because she does. No, I'm not being spoken to directly, because I'm only hearing what I think is valid and dismissing what I think isn't. He was talking to a congregation of people that choose to be there to hear him specifically, not unlike Sally Kern did - and there were those who bought it hook, line, and sinker, and those who were capable of thinking for themsleves.
(Deleted comment)
17th-Mar-2008 12:33 am (UTC) - Part I
Do you actually mean to draw a parallel between your family - none of whom are trying to influence the masses through a 6,000 member church and active internet presence? And are you actually comparing yourself to someone running for the presidency? Your analogy is pretty much off target in my book.
I am actually drawing a parallel between how much I'm influenced by people whose opinions I may agree with on some matters and not at all on others, which is exactly what I said without leaving room for the error you've throwing into the mix. There wasn't even a mere suggestion that I'm comparing myself to a presidential candidate, only to that of another person capable of thinking for themselves without buying 100% of another person's influence.

I know your brilliance is rarely challenged... but I'd challenge this analogy any day of the week.
I'd be flattered if you thought I was brilliant as that would be a kind compliment, but the level of snark and sarcasm you're giving is indicative of something else. Not working, by the way - my skin is far too thick for those barbs. Nice try, though!

How can you, of all people - the poster child for atheism - think that there's no reason for concern when a minister who marries a candidate to his wife... baptises his children... and serves as a spiritual advisor for 20 years, spews such nonsense...oh wait, you've answered that... you don't think there's guilt by association. You know what... just about 99.9 percent of every comment you've ever delivered on here seems to suggest just the opposite. lol. funny.
This whole part of your response was rhetorical, you've made up your mind before considering an answer. I speak for no one but myself. I'm poster child for nothing.

With this topic... you've really confused me.
I think it's pretty clear, actually. You don't agree with me, it appears as though I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton and in fact one of those "Obamaniacs", and you're having none of that.

(Deleted comment)
17th-Mar-2008 01:03 am (UTC) - Re: Part I
Fair enough, I assume it would be frustrating for her for those reasons and probably more. We agree to disagree.

Eh, it's the latest catchphrase that the Hillary-is-better crowd uses for anyone who supports Obama.

If Obama secures the nomination, he'll need the support of anyone that will give it to him. I don't believe that the HC camp is an enemy of the Obama camp, but that's a huge leap of faith to make when her supporters go after his employing the same kinds of tactics we've seen historically from Republicans.

All candidates are religious, I only take caution when they're fundies like Huckabee and Tancredo - or whomever it is clamoring for the fundie vote and selling out to get it by pandering to their madness. I'm a minority as an atheist, it's my job to find out how I fit into a majority of people who believe - not the other way around. It's not likely this is ever going to change in my lifetime. Obama doesn't use his religion as a club to beat anyone with, and I'm cool with that.
17th-Mar-2008 12:33 am (UTC) - Part II
Oh, and regarding your reference to Chris Wallace and Fox News... thanks for that alignment. How about you stop assuming that anyone who has a different opinion that you is nutjob conservative? I don't now.. nor do I ever watch Fox News.. as shocking as this may be to you... this liberal democrat actually is more than capable of thinking for himself... so much so that he pretty much never posts large passages of comments from others to make his point. And he's not afraid to stand up for his beliefs.
Welcome, the shoe appeared to fit. How about you stop assuming that everyone who doesn't think Clinton would necessarily be better than Obama as the PotUS be a target for your grudge? I don't watch Fox News either, but occasionally I see clips that I use to make a point about how out of touch they are and how what they do is hardly on par with real journalism. I think you're very intelligent and more than capable of thinking for yourself, George - never suggested anything less and have always held you in that reverence. It's just that you've never been quite so rude to me as you are now. Which is fine, I can take it. So you speak exclusively for yourself and never use passages from another to help make your point - yay for you, if you feel that makes you better than me then I'm fine with that as well. That's all about you though, make no mistake, and has nothing at all to do with me. Otherwise, why even use it? Have I ever suggested you were not capable of thinking for yourself? Is there some likelihood that I don't stand up for what I believe in? I've taken physical beatings for it, and then asked for more.

Oh... and if you could stop watching Chris Wallace for a few minutes and watch some of the other "liberal media"... you'd recognize that I'm far from the only Democrat concerned about this issue. But thanks for trying to minimize me for my concern. It won't be forgotten.
Ten points to you for assuming a great deal. Minimizing your concern? Did I not post adequate responses to each and every point you've made thus far taking great care to answer them, or is it that I don't appear to be in agreement with you that has you so pissed off? Forget, remember, makes no difference to me whatsoever. I'll agree to disagree with you if necessary - but how about let's cut the bullshit and you own the fact that you initiated this whole discussion like you had a personal axe to grind with me on these subjects, you've had a ridiculously bitchy tone that I could have just written off and totally ignored - but didn't - and not once have I been insulting with you on your own personal blog when you've posted things I've disagreed with. If you don't want to know what my answers are, don't ask me questions expecting them only to cry foul when you don't hear what you want to hear and then act like you're going to hold something over my head for it later or like I should apologize when I've done nothing to merit that. I don't owe you that, George. Take some responsibility here - if you don't like what I have to say, don't read it.

Edited at 2008-03-17 12:53 am (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
17th-Mar-2008 01:32 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
I'm a Fox-watching conservative.

That's one is on you, not me. I likened behavior and tone I found synonymous and called that out, but stated nothing as cut and dry or emphatic as the insult you suggest.

And for the record, no. You couldn't even manage to agree to disagree on the majority of points we've discussed, and because I don't agree with you that Hillary's experience makes her a more qualified candidate than Obama, you won't see beyond that. You did the exact same thing with hickbear in this thread. I don't agree with you about her, George - I do not - but so what! You don't have to agree with me, that's never been a prerequisite on my part. I respect your right to support your candidate of choice, but not the choice of delivery you've used to make your points in response to others as you have here with me.

I don't think you really wanted to hear me out, I think you just want me to agree with you and I'm somehow wrong if I don't. I gave back here as good as what I got from you and even took more care to answer your points and questions, however rhetorical, but that doesn't matter at all because I don't agree with you.

And you're done, so really - none of this even matters. Hope the weather is nice for you on Mount "I'm Right, You're Wrong, Period."

17th-Mar-2008 02:06 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
Thank you. It's been a slap-me-silly (or sillier) weekend around our house, and I've had neither the energy nor the temperament to try to have a dialog with someone who only really wants a yes-man to his monologue.

Thank you, sweetie. Should I ever make it back down to Columbus, or you make it to Nashville or (if things work the way we want) Toronto in the future, I believe there will be a bottle of a yummy Duckhorn merlot waiting on you.
17th-Mar-2008 02:10 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
No thanks required, just pointing out what I saw.

MMMM - vin rouge!
17th-Mar-2008 02:38 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
Well, yeah, from my perspective, thanks were required. Then again, I'm so Suthun I'm my own 4th cousin, so I tend to "thank" at the drop of a hat. :-}}}}

My dustup with George on Friday night, and then this "discussion" today, has made me think of the following:

17th-Mar-2008 02:44 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
I feel you on the Southern propensity for graciousness.

George is defending his position, bottom line, no matter how much we may disagree with his content or delivery. I think all of this is bigger than us combined, and like I told him in the comment below, we're all on edge here with so much to lose and so much already lost.
17th-Mar-2008 03:22 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
I figure I got a double-dose of the Good Social Graces gene thanks to my grandparents being second cousins. :-}}}}

And yep. The prospect of Bushy McClone having at least 4 years to make Supreme Court nominations - and you know that the next President is going to have at least one or two to name, if not more, in the next 4 years - that prospect alone prevents me from proclaiming that I'd never vote for the Dem nominee if they weren't "mine".

Not that I have a "mine", much as George wants to think otherwise. Yes, we voted for Obama in the Tennessee primary, which, BTW, Clinton won. Yes, I think Obama will be a better opponent against the Republicans because Clinton will bring out the Great Unwashed Masses who will knee-jerk a vote against her simply because of her husband.

Would those same Great Unwashed Masses also vote for McCain over Obama? You betcha. But Obama won't motivate the amount of nemesis that Clinton would and will. And, I believe, Obama will generate his own enthusiastic following - hell, he already has - to offset more than enough of the "Ain't no half-nigger gonna be my President" Neanderthal bigots who would crawl out of the woodwork to vote.

The bottom line, for me, is that we've got to guaran-damn-fucking-tee that McClone and his veep choice have no chance to wreak any more havoc on this country. If that means I've got cast my ballot for a white woman whose tactics I disagree with, or a black man whose associates don't exactly give me warm fuzzies, it doesn't matter. Either way, we've got to ensure that McCain is McCan't. And McWon't. And McNeverWill.
(Deleted comment)
17th-Mar-2008 02:39 am (UTC) - Re: Part II
Of course it was, I'm writing on my own blog what I choose, which is a lot like being naked if I choose to be in my own house. It wasn't about you, I never singled you out for scrutiny, in fact I never threw this in your lap to begin with and said "Here - start a discussion or throw a punch". Fine, you think there's a cause for concern and I'm not begrudging you that - I just think it's baseless, personally. Again, SO WHAT - don't take it so personally, this is all bigger than both of us combined. Your first response was personal as it meant enough to you to respond, and your delivery was considerably less than mere disagreement - I actually found it a bit caustic. Which is fine, I'm not Mary Fuckin' Sunshine either. You seem to be suggesting that I somehow came out of the gate insulting you. No.

I understand that, and I don't disagree on that point at all - I'd be frustrated as hell too if I were in your shoes for those very reasons, especially where her higher ranking supporters are really sinking her ship. Obama has had me just as frustrated before, so I sympathize to that end. I'm not seeing him personally throwing the race card that you do, however. I'm also unconvinced that the entire congregation of that church sees white devils exclusively instead of white people. If I did see it that way, perhaps I'd share your anger over it - but I don't think that is taking a very realistic view. You're painting with a very broad brush on that one in my opinion.

I'm not insulted, George - nor offended. I rarely bother with that sort of stuff because I've had to force myself to not take things personally most of the time when it feels like I am. It takes a lot to insult or offend me, in part because I've lived on the fringe most of my life and have a ton of shit in my past that made me have to toughen up when I was young just to survive. The part about me not being harmless here I'm not sure I understand - I assume that to mean I've been insulting or offensive as well. I'll take that, but please understand that if I've insulted or offended it's only been my way of making my point the way it makes sense to me. I come off a great deal more harshly than I intend to now and then, but when you get down to it I'm kind of a harsh guy. I don't have a filter for that unfortunately sometimes.

I don't think this is nonsense - I believe these things all matter. What I'm most concerned with right now is that I think you're getting where I was about a week ago, and that's not a good place to be. There is so much at stake in this upcoming election, and there is so much that is just COMPLETELY fucked up. We're so beaten down at what we've seen our country become, and we're all hyper defensive about the things we feel are sacred. I UNDERSTAND THAT PROFOUNDLY. I spent most of last week stressed out, in frustrated tears, and losing hope that it's ever going to get better - and I hit a wall with all of this politics shit. I really hope you nor anyone gets depressed as I have about this stuff, because it started taking a toll on my physical, psychological, and emotional health.

If Hillary gets the nomination, she'll have my support. I've said that from day 1. I have to believe that whomever gets it, they cannot do worse than the Republicans who've successfully destroyed all that I thought was good about my country.

Edited at 2008-03-17 02:41 am (UTC)
17th-Mar-2008 03:33 am (UTC)
On the contrary...I challenge his brilliance at least once a week.
17th-Mar-2008 02:42 am (UTC)

I think the Democratic Party is at a point where the traffic light has turned green...and they're arguing over whether they should go because the light is FOREST green, or should they go because the light is EMERALD green. The problem is that Obama and Clinton are BOTH well-qualified and they BOTH have staked out positions that would send the Nation in the right direction...add that they BOTH have baggage we wish they didn't have, they BOTH have constituenties in the party that want to grasp the gold ring, and they BOTH represent the potential for bringing us to an historic milestone that will change the nation forever...then it becomes perfectly clear why there is this deadlock and why the supporters of both camps have dug in and become totally unreasonable and illogical.

I *do* think that Hillary was held to a different standard than Obama for quite a while...but I think that the sudden pursuit of Obama's issues *NOW* (after people had raised those concerns months ago, as I did) is just another exercise in "GOTCHA" journalism by people who are more concerned about getting their bylines on interesting stories instead of serving the public's interests. It's patently unfair to treat someone with starry-eyes for three months to build him up, then suddenly stick a knife in his back to see how much he bleeds--for fun and amusement. And that's what's going on, otherwise the Rezko problem would have been covered MONTHS ago, the Reverend Wright issues would have been discussed at the same time as the Louis Farrakhan issue, and the Chicago Machine connections would have been understood long ago.

That all being said, the lowest common denominator that will determine the outcome of the Democratic nomination now--and perhaps the outcome of the November general election--will be whether the campaign styles that defined both Obama and Clinto in the past will be consistent today. The remaining primaries and caucuses--including Michigan and Florida voters--will have to do the job. The superdelegates are going to have to make sure that they do the *right* thing. And Hillary and Barack are going to have to bend over backwards to bring their supporters and their opponent's supporters together with motivation and excitement intact. Hopefully, Hillary will reach the understanding, SOON, that the good of the party and the success of the entire slate this fall depends on her graceful magnanimous withdrawal in favor of Barack. And I say that as someone who supported her until Wisconsin...I voted for her instead of my own senator in the Illinois primary...but I understand that continuing this fight saps the strength of BOTH candidates and the party as a whole, and does no good unless you're a Republican. And while Hillary's supporters will certainly support Obama when confronted with Shrub Lite the Elder, a withdrawal by Obama will leave African-Americans and the millions of enthused new voters dejected. If Obama gets elected with full support, Hillary will be a young 68 eight years from now and can run again.
17th-Mar-2008 02:48 am (UTC)

17th-Mar-2008 02:46 am (UTC)
And one more thing--if Howard Dean doesn't have the balls to yank those two campaigns into a closed meeting to knock their heads together, then he's missing a third of the equation to his otherwise fantasic efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up.

Enough of the circular firing squad...someone has to concede NOW for the good of the party and good of the nation.
17th-Mar-2008 02:49 am (UTC)
Motherfucker, I'd hump you so hard right now that you'd have a compound fracture when I was done.
This page was loaded Oct 23rd 2019, 4:01 pm GMT.