While I will not be voting for Obama this fall, I can still recognize things that are unfair to him. There are two questions that have come up which Obama should not have to answer or even concern himself.
One is a new twist on an old attack. A Jonesville, South Carolina pastor has this for a church sign:
Here’s the video. While I’m ashamed this guy represents Christ and South Carolina, the only comfort I am taking is that he is from Jonesville. In high school, they were our school’s rival. They stole stuff from our locker room and threw rocks at our bus. The town is not home to the sharpest knives in the drawer. (Just kidding…kind of, but not about the rocks and the stealing).
Obama shouldn’t have to answer questions about his name being “just one letter switched” from Bin Laden’s. He can (and he should) discuss his policy ideas about dealing with terrorism, but none of that has anything to do with how similar his name is spelled to a terrorist. I grow weary of morons and this pastor (God bless his stupid little heart) is a moron.
Most of the people who came to complain weren’t much better. The sign isn’t racist. It’s just stupid. The guy wasn’t showing off his racism. He was showing off his idiocy. But because Obama is black, anything that questions him is de facto racism. I thought his “greatest speech ever” on race brought forth the great race debate and healing that we have so longed for, oh well. As silly as it was to equate the sign with racism, his stupidity in putting it up and his church’s in supporting it (not to mention his misspelling of “hmm”) trumps all.
So while Obama shouldn’t have to answer why his name is spelled “kinda funny,” he also shouldn’t answer for a technology adviser showing a video to Google employees of a prancing, half-naked Jesus strutting through Hollywood singing “I Will Survive” until he gets hit by a bus.
It was probably stupid of his adviser to show the video, especially if he did it after the recent “bitter” flap. But, I’m not going to work up some sort of faux-indignation about a stupid spoof video by an adviser.
Neither of those things have anything to do with who Obama is as a person and who he would be as a president. Those are the issues that should decide whether we will elect him as our president.
I have encountered some people who believe this nonsense that he's a secret Muslim or Muslim-sympathizer. I reacted with incredulity, of course. As you say, there are a lot of stupid people in the world. Unfortunately, they have the vote.
This stuff just makes me laugh. However, the false belief that Obama is some sort of clean politician that really is practicing a new kind of politics is just absurd.
He is no different than Clinton in the kinds of things he is willing to do to get elected. Instead he just does it more artfully.
Case in point from a WSJ article published this weekend:
"In his first run for public office in 1996, Barack Obama faced an unexpected obstacle. A liberal black incumbent had encouraged him to run for the Illinois state senate seat she intended to vacate. Then she changed her mind, deciding to run again.
Mr. Obama hired a fellow Harvard Law School graduate, challenged the validity of signatures on her nominating petitions, and got her thrown off the ballot. He eventually ran unopposed, launching the career that has made him the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president." – For Obama, Chicago Days Honed Tactics, WSJ April 20, 2008 (Subscription required)
That to me sounds no different than the tactics of the politics of old ala GWB, Truman, and Clinton. No, the man is just a slicker version of a Teflon candidate. The difference is that when anyone questions his credentials or experience either the race card or "divisive politics" whining gets brough up by his campaign as a defection and defense…very well done.
Frankly, a neutron bomb could go off in his hands and it wouldn't hurt him because the anti-racism and anti-politics as usual rhetoric would decontaminate him.
(Off Soap Box)
No critical post about McCain from Seeker yet. Nothing from Silver about any other significant legislation McCain has passed other than McCain Feingold (which conservatives loath). You guys are very good at validating opinions you already hold. Obama said McCain would be better than Bush. Hillary jumped all over him for that as siding with republicans, but that is the kind of integrity I like to see. That's not an admission politicians should make since one of the attack strategies is portray McCain as a third term for Bush. Guts, integrity and respect are some of the personal qualities I admire in Obama.
Cin,
Sorry. My lack of response to your challenges is not due to a lack of data, but a lack of time. But since you pinged me again, here is a quick and dirty run down, which I am sure you will research further and also find holes…
Significant legislation passed
Co-Sponsor and legislative whip for the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1986
Co-Sponsor and Instrumental in getting the "Line Item Veto Act of 1996" passed (Subsequently ruled unconstitutional, but legislatively significant.
McCain-Feingold – 2001
Hollings-McCain Aviation and Transportation Security Act – 2001 which federalized all Airport security and institutionalized mandatory airport security checks
Legislation Proposed, but failed to reach Clochure
proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes to fund anti-smoking campaigns and reduce the number of teenage smokers, increase research money on health studies, and help states pay for smoking-related health care costs
McCain/Kennedy – Immigration Reform Act 2007
There is much more, but again…time. I am volunteering in election fundraisers and comunnity outreach for this political election season rather than sitting on the sidelines and just opining about all the wrongs of the candidates and the elections…although there is something truly lacking with these candidates.
I subscribe to the idea of if you don't like what you see, then get involved. So I am.
My view of Obama has not changed since day 1…inexperienced in real-world governance, but savvy in politics (particularly dirty politics). The example I excerpted from the WSJ article below demonstrates that he is just as dirty as a Clinton or Bush in what he is willing to do to people to get elected. He just does it with more skill and teflon than those that came before him.
I would love to see the flip side with Obama closely examined…I am no Republican as you know, but merely a person that looks at truth and facts. I have yet to see that here or in other places around the country…and when people do dare to ask the question the race card and "fear mongering" rhetoric comes up to defend Obama.
It sounds very familiar to me…like the same tactics used by the Bush administration to label people that questioned the War in Iraq as being traitors and being unpatriotic….not directly mind you, but ever so subtly. Funny how people that hated those kind of tactics are OK with them when being used to defend their candidate.
Hmmmm.
– S
"Guts, integrity and respect are some of the personal qualities I admire in Obama." —–>
What do admire about McCain?
What gets me is Silver's non-sequitur here. We're discussing the unfairness of the attacks on Obama as a stealth Muslim and he jumps in with yet another personal attack on him as the "teflon" candidate. Obama's enemies (and that's what they are) don't seem to really have anything on him except these minor dings. Same ol' "gotcha" politics so reminiscent of Nixonian tactics long past. Next we'll be hearing all about how he doesn't floss after every meal and how he doesn't recycle plastic shopping bags. More neo-McCarthyism from the wingnut right. This is exactly what his supporters are sick and tired of, and what the Republicans salivate over. I hope they are exiled to the outer darkness they so richly deserve!
"I hope they are exiled to the outer darkness they so richly deserve!"—–>
Liberalism?
Cin, I wrote this post not seeker. But you are wrong if you think we haven't wrote anything critical of McCain. Of course, the majority of the criticism comes from the right side. It would be disingenuous to criticize him from the left, since we don't hold those positions. You can find all those things at MyDD or DailyKos or New York Times or Washington Post, you know all the normal liberal media places.
But just to rebuff your assertion, I will link to some pieces critical of McCain or examining his political problems. It will take me several comments because TypePad says I am trying to spam the comments. This is not an exhaustive list, but representative.
John McCain's Conservative Problem by Daddypundit – McCain struggling to get conservative votes in primaries.
Oh Louis, your whole rant about wing nuts, etc. going after Obama. Remember who called him "teflon" it wasn't me or seeker. The people who do criticize him on legitimate areas are not "enemies" are not simply grasping at anything. It is possible to have a substantial disagreement with Obama and not be a racist, bigot, hater, enemy, etc. For someone that is supposed to be a uniter, those who disagree with him sure get labeled some pretty divisive things.
Here are some of the other posts:
McCain 'flip-flops', goes conservative on taxes by seeker – The senator changed his position on taxes. While seeker was glad for this change. It does call attention to a position change or "flip-flop" and asserts that he hopes McCain won't do the same on immigration.
Dr. Dobson: "I Will Not Vote if McCain is the Nominee" by Daddypundit – Links and quotes from Dr. Dobson saying he will not vote for McCain. He disagree's with Dobson, but states that McCain is not his first, second or even third choice, but he will not sit at home on election day.
McCain and NY Times: BFFs no more by Aaron – I make fun of McCain and the media, since McCain jokingly called the media "his base." Interestingly, a comment about McCain by Cineaste in this post reads in part, "If you ask me though, I like the man."
More to come.
Here's the final two I found in just a few minutes of searching our archives.
Hating McCain – why the far right complains and why they'll have to suck it up by seeker – He details why conservatives disagree and dislike McCain so much. He disagrees with many conservatives on these issues, but he airs their (our) problems with McCain.
My own candidate struggles by Aaron – I detail my own issues with all the candidates, including giving McCain a "C."
Here's the problem Cin. I could post a post criticizing McCain right now and it would not mean anything to you because you wouldn't agree with it. I wouldn't be attacking McCain where you think he should be attacked.
As I said before if you want criticism of McCain from a secular liberal perspective, you've got plenty of options available. But a group blog run by three Christian conservatives is not going to be the place to get it.
We're discussing the unfairness of the attacks on Obama as a stealth Muslim and he jumps in with yet another personal attack on him as the "teflon" candidate.
Louis, sorry, but discussing attacks on Obama is relevant. And no it is not a personal attack, but a relevant critique and shining a light on behaviors and very "un-new kind of politics" tactics to get elected (see WSJ excerpt).
In my view, this critique is highly relevant to any discussion related to questions that Obama needs to answer. The man has staked his own public persona on being a new kind of politician and one above practicing politics as usual. Yet, when one looks closer, he has used the very same Republican and politics as usual tactics to get his first elected office in the Illinois State Senate. He has indeed managed to deflect all relevant questions raised about him using various weapons. That amounts to teflon.
A personal attack? Hardly. Instead, it reveals that Obama no matter how much a voter may identify with the rhetoric he is selling is no different than any other candidate that came before him when it comes to the tactics that he and or is campaign surrogates are willing to stoop to to get elected.
The fact that he does it and nothing seems to stick to him is a testament to the fact that he does it 500 times better than Bill Clinton or GWG did when they were running for office. In addition, as Aarron states (and I agree with for once), for someone that claims to be a Uniter, he and his campaign sure do through out the race card an awful lot against people that raise legitimate questions.
One last thing… For the record, I am not a conservative nor a liberal… I am a realist and also an independent. I ask tough questions of all the candidates regardless of their color, sexual orientation, and the type of rhetoric they are trying to sell. No candidate gets a pass from me. That is the kind of voter I would think you would not want to have exiled to some island just because I am asking some very pointed questions.
BTW, I have a very detailed list and goal post of experience and qualifications that a presidential candidate must have to be considered for my vote. However, I am sure that once I list that or just challenge you a little more that you will just unleash an F-bomb in my direction. Whatever.
The group showing the most reluctance to join Obama are those very people he called bitter/gun toting/religious rubes, in San Fran: working-class whites. They also happen to make up the bulk of the general electorate. No uniter here.
Hillary was out spent 3 to 1 in Penn, BHO still loses. No uniter here.
He is looking for a knock out punch, he is needing a knock out punch, in order to rid himself of Hil. He is going to have to go negative in order to shake her, down right nasty negative I believe.
In this he will show himself as not the uniter, not the "new" style post whatever poli, but as what he is, the same ole same ole with the novel melanin and soaring messianic rhetoric.
Meet the new lib, same as the old lib.
For someone that is supposed to be a uniter, those who disagree with him sure get labeled some pretty divisive things.
You are not disagreeing with him, you are attacking him with McCarthyite guilt-by-association smears. Disagree with his policies all you want, but please leave off these Clintonesque/Rovian smears.
Despite Ben's infantile name-calling, I don't consider Obama to me a "messiah" or without sin. What he offers is the possibility of a new direction. He has explicitly denounced the old-style politics and seeks a new way for the country. After eight years of Rove/Bush/Cheney destroying the country, we need something different. Does Silver really consider McCain the new direction we need? Is McCain without sin? Does McCain live up to Silver's godlike standards? Please.
Disagree with his political stance, not his person.
btw Silver, after you egregiously insulted and attacked me before, I see little ground for you on some higher plane you think you hold.
Whatever.
He has explicitly denounced the old-style politics and seeks a new way for the country.
Yes, that is his public stance. However, his actions taken to get elected to the legislature prove otherwise.
You are not disagreeing with him, you are attacking him with McCarthyite guilt-by-association smears.
No, I don't attack the person, but the politician and his tactics. And this comment and point I have raised is a critique of the politician and his tactics…not an assault on the person. I don't believe I called Obama an adulterer or a deviant…that would be a personal attack.
No, I merely challenged the validity of his claims that he is running a new kind of campaign that is above politics as usual and that he is a candidate that has always practiced this approach of being above politics as usual. That claim made by Obama is a complete falsehood.
I believe that you resort to this kind of rhetoric because you cannot refute the claim that I have made and backed up with proof (WSJ).
Clintonesque/Rovian smears
I don't think you have been to any of Obama's fund raisers lately. He uses these same smears that you claim to abhor. I have a very good friend (and an Obama supporter that was) and it made his stomach turn.
The fact is that smears are used by all politicians. Some are just better at masking the smear than others. Bill Clinton in his day as considered the best, but now has been replaced with Obama.
I guess you just can't face that fact or you just really want to believe in him…just like a lot of people believed in Bill Clinton.
I am going into this election with my eyes wide open not holding my noise and closing my eyes.
Let's keep this civil. As I don't think I have attacked anyone here, I will ask for a discussion that is calm and not based on name-calling.
Louis, one problem is that Obama has been fairly weak on laying out specific policies, but those he has laid out I disagree with vehemently. I'm against pulling out of Iraq. Whether you agreed with it initially or not, we are there now and to pull out would embolden the terrorist and give them and Iran (same thing?) a huge advantage in the Middle East.
I disagree with his tax policies and his "solution" for health care. Any kind of political solution I have seen from Obama I disagree with. But I also disagree with him "personally" on issues that he discusses. Not that I dislike him personally, but that I disagree with some things that are personal to him – his choice of church, his choice of associates, etc. That is not a huge factor, but pieces of a larger puzzle. It's not a smear, it's part of who Obama is.
Messianic = cheap theatriics by MSM and Barry himself, which try to portray him as something he is not, a new type of politician. Thrills running up legs, he(BO)speaking of a heaven here on Earth if we would elect him president, etc. Messianic implications.
"Despite Ben's infantile name-calling, I don't consider Obama to me a "messiah" or without sin. What he offers is the possibility of a new direction. He has explicitly denounced the old-style politics and seeks a new way for the country." —–>
Do not worry, "the old style politics" are alive and well. Barry has them in his arsenal, and he will have to use them. He's gotta break her hold. His mister nice guy image is false, and his organizations attacks to come will prove this out.
Meet the new lib, same as the old lib.
A liberal black incumbent had encouraged him to run for the Illinois state senate seat she intended to vacate. Then she changed her mind, deciding to run again.
I see nothing wrong with what he did at all. He "challenged the validity of her nominating signatures" after she reneged on her deal with him. She was then tossed off the ballot. Why? Because her nominating signatures were not valid. Why weren't they valid? Could it be that they really weren't valid? Weren't the authorities involved in determining this? Obviously, yes. There's nothing wrong with this at all, unless you already despise the man and want to make a mountain out of a molehill (as the ultra-conservative Robert Murdoch has apparently done with his new toy, the formerly respectable Wall Street Journal). BFD!
And this is what Silver offers as evidence that Obama deals in complete falsehoods? Bah! What an "independent" observer he makes! He has really convinced me to vote for Dubya II – oh, excuse me, McCain.
I can respect Aaron's position, but not that of others here, or those in the MSM and the Clinton camps which seek to destroy Obama based on these trumped up smears and McCarthyite/Nixonian tactics. But, then, to expect fairness and justice in politics is a fool's errand.
Whatever…
"But you are wrong if you think we haven't wrote anything critical of McCain."
Aaron, since McCain became the presumptive republican nominee, what negative posts have been written about him? My whole argument to Seeker was that it seems he's off limits now so this blog can focus on slamming Obama. Lets look at the examples you provided. Seeker actually praised McCain for flip flopping with "Good Boy." "Good boy" is not a criticism. Both Daddypundit's posts were in February when the evangelical Huckabee was still in it. In the NYT article you were bashing the Times not McCain. I actually saw that as a pro-McCain post. Look at the dates on the last two posts you mentioned. They are both well before McCain became the presumptive nominee. Is Senator McCain "off limits" to you guys now but you consider Senator Obama as "fair game?" Who's really getting the free pass when it comes to political criticism? Teflon John.
"Co-Sponsor and legislative whip for the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1986, Co-Sponsor and Instrumental in getting the "Line Item Veto Act of 1996", Hollings-McCain Aviation and Transportation Security Act"
Okay so, 22 years ago, 12 years ago and 7 years ago. I'm not impressed. Senator Obama already has 2 with a 3rd on the way in 3 years.
"A liberal black incumbent had encouraged him to run for the Illinois state senate seat she intended to vacate. Then she changed her mind, deciding to run again."
Ummm, so she was in the wrong, correct? How the hell can you tell someone, "Here take my seat" and that person sits down and then you say "I changed my mind, give me my seat back." Isn't one of the main criticisms of Obama is that he isn't politically tough enough? Thanks to the WSJ for answering that for us.
"I am no Republican as you know, but merely a person that looks at truth and facts."
Normally, I'd agree. When it comes to Senator Obama, I'd say you aren't. The main attacks from republicans have been guilt by association. If you buy into those, then you are not looking at either truth or facts but misrepresentation and character assassination.
Is Senator McCain "off limits" to you guys now but you consider Senator Obama as "fair game?" Who's really getting the free pass when it comes to political criticism? Teflon John.
You're honestly asking why a conservative blog is criticizing a liberal Democrat more than a moderate Republican? Are you serious?
Have we criticized Obama more than McCain? I'm sure we have. Why? Because we disagree with Obama more and he is in the media more. Since taking the nomination, McCain has been careful to not step on any conservative toes. When he does, I'll let you know.
Would it really make you feel better if I criticized McCain as being too moderate and not conservative enough? That's how I would criticize (and have criticized) him. But if you want me (or seeker or Daddypundit) to go after McCain from the left side, you are at the wrong blog. Is that not obvious?
Just like you consider the stuff brought up against Obama now as "misrepresentation and character assassination," I look at most of the junk flung at McCain (too old, too angry, too Bush, too whatever) as silly and not worth talking about. I am biased? Yep. Are you biased? Yep. What's the point here, especially in an olive branch post where I give silly attacks to which Obama shouldn't have to respond?
Let's keep this civil. As I don't think I have attacked anyone here, I will ask for a discussion that is calm and not based on name-calling.
Aaron I agree whoheartedly. I don't think I have engaged in a personal attack at all, but merely challenged a position.
Louis:
I see nothing wrong with what he did at all. He "challenged the validity of her nominating signatures" after she reneged on her deal with him. She was then tossed off the ballot. Why? Because her nominating signatures were not valid. Why weren't they valid? Could it be that they really weren't valid?
Or more likely was it because Obama could not win the election against an opponent with a better known name, so he chose to resort to dirty politics to challenge the validity of the registrants instead of merely going up against the opponent (a Democrat) and trying to win the election.
See that's the rub Loius. It is a big deal. Maybe the some of the signatures were invalid and maybe not. However, Obama being the man that has said that he is against politics as usual should not have resorted to challenging ballot signatures against a Democrat who encouraged him to run in the first place simply so Obama could run opposed. That's dirty and slimy.
Let me put it to you this way. Suppose you were that incumbant and you encouraged a good friend of yours to run for your seat. Then a few months later you decide to run again and find that that very good friend of yours in the same political party decided to stab you in the back and keep you off the ballot so he could run unopposed.
That sort of behaviors would equate to a backstabber and dirty tactics. No, Obama could have run in the election and maybe gotten elected anyway without resorting to stabbing his friend in the back. Instead he practiced politics as usual behavior.
I know you feel differently, but whatever.
btw Silver, after you egregiously insulted and attacked me before, I see little ground for you on some higher plane you think you hold.
As for attacking you in the past… I can't specifically point to any point in this thread or discussion where I specifically attacked you. No, I challenged you and tried to push you to think.
The last time you went off in a huff, I can recall that we had a very strong difference of opinion and emotions got hot. However, I did not resort to name calling or unloading the F-Bomb on people when I got upset. I seem to recall others doing it. You seem to feel wronged by me for some reason. Whatever.
I really don't take things said here personally. Nor do I go on swearing at folks, calling them names when I get mad, etc. I try and maintain a civil decorum here even if I do try and push people to think by chalenging their positions.
Of all the folks that post here with maybe the exception of Louis, I am totally out of the norm of what the owners of this blog believe in. No, I started commenting here because Seeker and I got to talking one day. I can easily go comment somewhere else or even better use the time I spend here to actually do something to make a difference…which is why I have barely commented here since I returned from Costa Rica. That trip changed my perspective on the world and this country…so I got even more involved.
Your ball.
Ben:
Hillary was out spent 3 to 1 in Penn, BHO still loses. No uniter here.
Of interest is a new national poll that was released. While I don't always believe the validity of polls, this one made me stop and think.
Paraphrasing as I heard this on the radio:
A new national poll conducted in the aftermath of Pennsylvania indicated that 3 out 4 Hilliary Clinton supporters indicated that should Obama be the Democratic Nominee that they would not support them. When asked whom they would support in November, 3 out of 4 Clinton supporters indicated that they would vote for John McCain in the even that Clinton did not gain the nomination.
I know Louis and Cin will attack this. However, when looking at the bulk of Clinton's voter base low income women and also working class males who consistently turn out in large numbers at the polls, this is problematic for Obama with such a close race between Clinton and him.
Again, I take this as a purely academic point. And yes, polls can be misleading…FWIW.
Let me put it to you this way. Suppose you were that incumbent and you encouraged a good friend of yours to run for your seat. Then a few months later you decide to run again and find that that very good friend of yours in the same political party decided to stab you in the back and keep you off the ballot so he could run unopposed.
Actually, you have it completely backwards: If I encouraged my friend (btw: was she his friend?) to go for my seat and he proceeded to do so, and then I reneged, it would be me who did the stabbing. This is called dirty and slimy politics. Since her signatures were invalid, she didn't belong on the ballot. And, since it's the Robert "Fox News" Murdoch owned WSJ who brought this forth, I dismiss it as yet more far-right, Republican sewer matter. I repeat, BFD.
Although I cannot find the exchange now, I distinctly remember you insulting me personally (using the "you" pronoun) and, when called on it, feebly tried to explain that it was a "general" criticism. I went back and went over it several times to see if I was wrong, but no dice.
Bah! Who cares? I guess your high horse places you on a distinctly more elevated plane from us ordinary humans.
PS – If Billary gets the nomination, they will do so only be thwarting the will of the majority. Therefore, I will just not vote. America will deserve whatever it gets.
PPS – I am also very upset by the news that seeker's pet project, the anti-gay "California Marriage Amendment" will probably qualify on November's CA ballot. As one of "humanity's enemies," I have every right to consider this an attack on 1) my humanity and 2) my status as an equal citizen, and thus to conclude that, should it pass and homophobia officially become part of the CA Constitution, I will no longer consider myself a citizen and henceforth cease voting or caring one dime about America and its bogus claims of "liberty and justice for all." Since these atrocities (anti-gay human beings amendments) have succeeded throughout the country (spurred on by "Christians"), I am on the razor's edge right now. A victory for McCain or Billery coupled with a victory for the forces of darkness here in CA (as will probably happen considering what happened the last time), will push me right over the edge.
PPPS – I challenge Aaron to remove the "Humanity's Enemies" label heading the section referencing the "California Marriage Amendment." You are one of the owner's of this blog. It's presence must therefore reflect your views. I dismiss seeker as a bigot and hate-monger, but do you agree with him here? Are you one as well?
"You're honestly asking why a conservative blog is criticizing a liberal Democrat more than a moderate Republican? Are you serious?"
Just because you and Seeker are conservatives and this is a conservative blog doesn't preclude you from being fair minded. Are my expectations too high for wanting to see some balance from conservatives? It's not an unreasonable request and certainly it doesn't merit the ridicule of a question like "Are you serious?" Yes, I'm being both honest and serious.
I'm finding this far more compelling than politics right now.
Bah! Who cares? I guess your high horse places you on a distinctly more elevated plane from us ordinary humans.
Look who is getting personal? Not me, but you. Just stop. You want to have others not insult you, then start by turning down your sarcasm, disdain, and also actions that turn toward personal attacks.
If you want people to have respect and refrain from attacks against you then you should take the high road.
There is just no reasoning with a person when this crap starts to fly.
I refuse to be baited by you.
Silver –
"A new national poll conducted in the aftermath of Pennsylvania indicated that 3 out 4 Hilliary Clinton supporters indicated that should Obama be the Democratic Nominee that they would not support them."—–>
Yes, I hear the same, and I believe it to be true for this reason .. again we look and see that BHO stepped into a MASSIVELY destructive verbal bit of snobbery that insulted(I am included)the people who live close to the Earth(at least in comparison to the wealthy being engaged at the time)that McC and HRC appeal to. I for one feel he flipped the bird to those of us who do view religion as more than a past time(or just a place to build street cred)and those of us who understand the premise the founders had in mind concerning what a firearm in the hand of a free man can mean. These things are our birthright(among others in our BofR), deeply ingrained culturally. A bad bad move using such unwise words. There is so much more behind his words.
you should take the high road
?! But that's not the American way! I'm just emulating our current heroes: Billary, Rove/Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Haggee/McCain, Dobson, and all the other icons of the right-wing. And, of course, our "friend," seeker (as well as "Silver Hallide"). They slap me, I punch back – the Christian way.
Regarding the "Obama Osama, humm are they brothers?" sign. This is your typical republican mindset. Smear his patriotism, assassinate Obama's character, use guilt by association, misrepresent his words, paint him as a monster to prevent attention being called to McCain's weaknesses. I'll use the same attack against McCain using an exact match instead of a close match for first names. How about a sign that reads…
"John McCain John Holmes[porn star], humm are they brothers?"
Both are equally stupid but to some gullible people, only the first sign makes sense. The same people view the second sign as an obvious smear of John McCain. Obama's relationship to his pastor is a huge concern to some gullible people. The same people view McCain's relationship with his pastor(s) "spiritual guide" as no concern at all.
As an atheist, one of the good things that is coming out of all this is that pastors carry more political baggage than their endorsements are worth. Christopher Hitchens was right, "religion poisons everything," especially presidential candidates.
Regarding the "Obama Osama, humm are they brothers?" sign. This is your typical republican mindset.
Of course it is, Cin. That's why I (a conservative Republican) said this about the guy behind the sign:
Are my expectations too high for wanting to see some balance from conservatives?
What would show you I was "fair?" What would be "balance?" Do I have to repeat DailyKos and Olbermann talking points to be considered okay by you? If I go after McCain it will be from the right. Is that really going to satisfy you and make you think I'm balanced.
This blog is about our opinions. It's not supposed to be an unbiased news source (an oxymoron if you ask me). I never claimed to be an uninvolved observer of the news. I'm sure Cin, if you had a blog, we would see you go after all three of the remaining candidates with equal time and equal vigor. I'm waiting on your critique of Obama.
I repeat again: Of course, we have went after Obama more than McCain for three reasons: 1) Obama is in the media more now and is a more compelling story 2) Obama is more of an unknown on the national level. Much of the junk with McCain and Hillary are old news, but Obama is new to the national stage. 3) I (We) disagree with Obama more than we disagree with McCain, therefore Obama is going to catch more heat from us.
As an aside, we don't go after Hillary as much (at least for me) because she's not the front-runner. If Obama were trailing her and it appeared almost impossible for him to win, I'd be talking about her.
Louis, to the "California Marriage Amendment" button. I don't do anything with the layout and design of the blog – if so you wouldn't see a big butterfly at the top of the page.
But to your real question – I don't consider gay marriage to be an "enemy of humanity." With the caveat that I believe all sex outside of man/woman marriage is a sin and all sin is a an enemy to humanity in that sense. But, I would not equate it with abortion and terrorism. I do, however, support state amendments. Not a national one at this point. You know my positions on this.
you should take the high road
?! But that's not the American way! I'm just emulating our current heroes: Billary, Rove/Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Haggee/McCain, Dobson, and all the other icons of the right-wing. And, of course, our "friend," seeker (as well as "Silver Hallide"). They slap me, I punch back
OK fine. Then stop crying foul when people start attacking you personally whether it is intentional or not. You have no moral or ethical grounds to do so.
From this point forward I will give no quarter to you even when I see an attack against you by others that is not remotely justified. And, yes, I have come to your defense in the past…the massive gay/biggot argument we had with Seeker was one of them…but no mare.
Nothing personal, but I just see a genuine level of hypocracy in your behavior…not OK to attack Louis, but it is OK for Louis to engage in personal attacks against others regardless of the excuse.
I have a very thick skin, but obviously you do not (getting a little personal, but I am tired of your crap). This is a forum for exchanging ideas and debate not personal attacks against one another.
If you take things personally from this point forward, that is your problem…no more whining.
Nothing personal.
– S
Oh, boo-hoo!
Crocodile tears anyone?
Oh, boo-hoo!
Crocodile tears anyone?
Louis, you just proved my point.
Two-or-Three's credibility goes down the toilet because anyone can dismiss, with the author's blessing, any critique on Obama as being so much worthless conservative spin. Basically, you've admitted that you're just out to get him. People can dismiss you much as they dismiss Ann Coulter, as a completely biased demagogue whose main ambition in life is to smear liberals. Your blog becomes nothing more than a propaganda outlet. How can you be fair? Apply the same critical standards to McCain as you do to Obama and post it. At least make an effort to show your not totally in the tank for McCain.
Basically, you've admitted that you're just out to get him.
No, that's what you read into what I wrote. You ignored the first two reasons I gave and distorted the last one.
Cin, you're honestly telling me if you had a political blog, you would spend as much time criticizing Obama as you do McCain? Please answer that, so we can be fully informed as we move forward in this discussion. Don't beat around the bush (no pun intended), just let me know that you would make sure for every anti-McCain story you posted, you would also post an anti-Obama story.
You constantly single out one candidate and slam him. You can make excuses, but you've already admitted and demonstrated your bias. You are out to get Obama. Look at the last 10 posts, 5 of them are dedicated to attacking Obama. You think that's fair?
"Cin, you're honestly telling me if you had a political blog, you would spend as much time criticizing Obama as you do McCain?"
I'd try. I would at least make an effort to show I'm not completely partisan by criticizing Obama. I'd especially attack his Iraq policy, 16 months and pull out no matter what, BS. I'd praise McCain for his integrity. I give you my word on that. But two-or-three has no scruples about being partisan at this point in the election, does it? McCain is off limits.
You are out to get Obama.
Again, you ignore my other two points. Obama is the more compelling story right now. I don't have anything new to talk about when it comes to McCain or Clinton (who is worthless news wise until she gets more delegates or does something at the convention). Obama is a national-newbie and more stuff is coming out about him. He's more interesting to talk about.
Cin, you can say whatever you want because you don't have a political blog. I don't doubt that you would try to make it balanced. But you would find yourself linking to things that affirm your viewpoints. That's just how it goes.
I'm not being partisan, I'm being honest. I'm not CNN. I'm me and I have opinions about the candidates. I agree with Obama a lot less than I agree with McCain. I have said good things about both and bad things about both. I said more good things and less bad things about McCain because I agree with him more.
I could lie (like basically all the MSM) and say I am unbiased, but I'm not lying to you. Everyone is biased. I'm biased. You're biased. All bloggers are biased. All people are biased. Ever sat down and counted up how many positive pieces Olbermann has done on McCain and how many ? As far as blog goes, when was the last time you read a Pro-McCain piece at DailyKos or Democratic Underground?
"Again, you ignore my other two points."
Excuses.
"But you would find yourself linking to things that affirm your viewpoints. That's just how it goes."
I know that. I would also be posting criticisms about all the candidates.
"I have said good things about both and bad things about both."
Then why not now? Is it because now that McCain is the presumptive nominee that he's off limits?
"As far as blog goes, when was the last time you read a Pro-McCain piece at DailyKos or Democratic Underground?"
I've read negative Obama pieces at liberal blogs. Huffington post broke the bittergate "scandal." Scandal in quotes for reasons I've already made clear. But 6 of 11 posts on Obama? Why should I not dismiss you and Seeker as people who want single one candidate out and "get him." Why don't you rename your blog for this week and call it, "Two or Three people who are unabashedly in the tank for McCain."
I finally went back and looked at the 6 of 11 number. I only counted 5 posts and of those – one was a funny, satire piece (hardly an attack), another was my piece bashing two stupid questions that Obama should not have to deal with – the one we are writing on right now.
That leaves three pieces that were actually "critical" of Obama. One was on the "bittergate scandal" that, as you say was broke by a liberal blog and was the top news story everywhere. The other was pointing to two non-traditional Obama somewhat critics – Democrats and atheists – to illustrate it was not just the VRWC coming after him. The other was my post detailing that I'm not supporting him because of the issues, kind of a humorous response to the racism insinuation. I honestly posted it, just to have fun with you. I've got another post (a little different slant) in my head along the same lines.
Then why not now? Is it because now that McCain is the presumptive nominee that he's off limits?
No, it's because what I told you earlier. McCain has been smart and hasn't angered the conservative base in awhile. Once he says something that I disagree with. I'll let you know. In fact, if you can find a story about McCain where he says something that you think I would disagree with, send it to me and I'll post it. Just go ahead and send me something you think is damning to McCain and I'll post it. I don't care. As I said in the other post. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, but I don't trust Hillary or Obama at all. So, that leaves me with voting for McCain. Of course, I'm going to be more favorable to the guy I'm more than likely going to vote for.
There is no collusion or conspiracy theories here to down Obama and pimp McCain. I just post stories and things that I find interesting. Seeker does the same. Daddypundit does the same – sometimes. He's not here much. No one is singling Obama out. He's the frontrunner in the only contested national election right now. He gets all the attention for better or for worse. Just like with the race thing, you don't need to read into this for some deep hidden meaning. I'm pretty open about my thoughts and even my motives.
"No one is singling Obama out."
Why I'm not voting for Obama?
Who to blame when a liberal and an atheist attack Obama?
Two questions Obama shouldn't have to answer
Obama heals hundreds
What was Obama thinking?
Obama 5. McCain 0. In the most recent posts. All things being equal, if you are a reader who stumbles upon this blog, you'd get the impression someone wants "to get" Obama, not McCain, and not Clinton.
"In fact, if you can find a story about McCain where he says something that you think I would disagree with, send it to me and I'll post it."
Ummm, that's like Ann Coulter (your not Ann but look at my point) saying that if you can find something about Bush that she disagrees with then she'll post it. That won't work. McCain can say the political equivalent of "I like to eat children for dinner" and you'll try to downplay it. Why don't I send you my criticisms of McCain and you post those and if you disagree you can say why. At least that way it's somewhat fair. 5 Obama posts to 1 McCain.
Obama 5. McCain 0.
What if they were all pro-Obama posts? Would that still mean we are out to get him? That's why just raw numbers don't mean anything. I've already went through them post by post and I've already explained why Obama is a more compelling, interesting story right now beyond McCain and beyond Clinton.
If you went back in our archives to during the Republican primary, you would have found much more things critical of certain Republicans like McCain than of Obama or Clinton. The entire national media is focused on that race and Obama is the frontrunner now. He has to be able to stand that heat.
If McCain says something stupid, I'll let you know. He's being careful with the base right now. He's made some slip-ups (see my latest post), but he's being a "good boy" right now. But if it would make you feel more "fair" to have your detailed criticism of McCain up – send it to me. I'll put it up. It doesn't matter to me.
A side note: Hitchens doesn't like Obama because he has opposed the Iraq incursion since its inception and Hitchens still supports it.