Barack Obama should still win the Democratic nomination and is probably still the odds on favorite to win the presidency later this year, but why in the world would he say something so absolutely stupid.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Even his supporters should admit this was a huge political gaffe. Ignoring whether you think his sentiment is right or not, it was politically moronic to utter this to elite, wealthy donors in San Francisco about small town voters in the state where you could possibly deliver a surprise knock-out blow to your opponent.
But I’m not sure what was worse, his statement, his non-apology apology (“obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that”) or his explanation of his statement.
There are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry… So I said, well ya know, when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, ya know they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response.
In his original statement, Obama mentioned essentially four things small-town people “cling to”: Religion, Guns, Xenophobia and Anti-trade. In his explanation, he made it sound like he was describing those things as good. Those are things you can “count on” and a “natural response.”
I’m not going to question Sen. Obama’s devotion to his faith, but his record on the other three are mixed at best. He has voted consistently against gun-rights through out his political career. He describes being supportive of increased border enforcement as “anti-immigrant.” Surely Obama is not saying that being anti-immigrant is a good thing.
He also speaks about being anti-trade. This one is the most puzzling. He has stated his opposition to virtually every free trade agreement. He has attacking Clinton on numerous occasions about her husband’s administration’s support for NAFTA.
In another instance after his statement, he sought to diffuse the statement by referring to his faith as a “bulwark” and that he was not trying to demean the very faith he embraces. But what about the other three? His statement doesn’t make sense and neither does his explanation.
This may prove even more harmful to Obama than his former pastor, especially as people are beginning to compare his statements to another political philosopher who wanted change.
I think a range of things are going on here:
1. He was trying to explain that he understands why people might take certain political positions as a response to economic downturns – they return to the things that they know and trust in – fearful retreats into religion, xenophobia, and self-protection. All probably true, but he was a fool to say it because he characterized a huge portion of Americans in a negative light, rather than believing the best. Could it be that people have good reasons to be religious, support the right to bear arms, and desire to limit illegal immigration?
He basically said "if you don't agree with liberal ideas on this, you are basically being an illogical, fear-based idiot." Bad move.
2. He was revealing the fearful rhetoric and perspective of the left towards the right – that they are religious, gun-toting, uneducated boobs. This view often surfaces in liberal circles, justified by such true claims as "the average educational level of liberals is higher than conservatives" – unfortunately, they associate *character* and *wisdom* with level of education.
Or as the Washington Post infamously wrote:
3. He was attempting to ensure that a Republican wins the white house. Good job on that one.
As remarked in one of my favorite weekly podcasts, Shire Network News, Obama's quote is very parallel to a famous movie quote from one of the greatest movies of all time, Blazing Saddles:
I hesitate to get into this because it's a non-winner. People who are against Obama anyway will read the worst into it no matter what he or his supporters say. Nevertheless, I will give it one (and only one) shot:
He was trying to explain that he understands why people might take certain political positions as a response to economic downturns – they return to the things that they know and trust in – fearful retreats into religion, xenophobia, and self-protection.
So far so good. This is what he was really saying. The truth of the matter is that economic conditions have turned sour in many smaller – as well as larger – communities around the nation, and that, as a response, many people feel angry and impotent and fearful, and thus bitter. They may turn to more extreme forms of religion, fear of the "other," etc., as a shelter against the storm. It wasn't meant as a put-down, but as a diagnosis.
All probably true, but he was a fool to say it because he characterized a huge portion of Americans in a negative light, rather than believing the best.
It came off as negative for two reasons:
1. He was misunderstood both innocently and purposely.
2. Politicians dare not criticize Americans ever. They must flatter us constantly as the wisest, kindest, bravest, best human beings who ever lived. God forbid we should have any faults which need pointing out (thus the flap over his preacher and the racism factor). Obama's mistake was in telling the truth about a certain portion of the electorate in unflattering terms rather than assuring them that they can never do anything wrong or unfair. How unAmerican!
He was revealing the fearful rhetoric and perspective of the left towards the right – that they are religious, gun-toting, uneducated boobs.
Here you go too far. Certainly, there's no indication that Obama feels this way. Maybe you should take a look into a mirror as well and look at your (and other conservative) rhetoric about the left or the liberal. If demons ever walked the earth, they appear as left-liberals according to you right-wingers. Maybe the war should stop before we tear ourselves apart.
What is it about conservatives and Christians that they love to hide behind the martyr's mask whenever they are attacked or even mildly criticized? You guys never hesitate to condemn and attack in the most vicious manner, but whenever anyone dares return fire or criticize your behavior you start shrieking about how "elitist" and unfair the response. It's just plain stupid.
'nuff said.
My take:
1.Being in an insulated environment(elitist millionaires,closed to the media,closed to the public)Barry felt he could let his hair down, relax and speak his mind to his type of people, about THE type of folks that get in the way of the Aristocracy and what they envision for America.(The recent unconstitutional gun laws in Philly and trying to be passed in Illinois being a couple of examples of the hundreds).
2.”[the Christian right are] largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command” ——->
This is all very debatable of course. I would not be so sure about that we are so easy to command … trying to order one to forsake their worship or surrender rights that cannot be surrendered may be dangerous for the health ( political and otherwise ) of those who are doing the ordering.
3. “3. He was attempting to ensure that a Republican wins the white house. Good job on that one.”——->
It is gonna be classic … the Moderate Mav v baby Marxist.(Although I am not counting HRC out).
Oh, do either you seeker or louis own firearms?
Politicians dare not criticize Americans ever. They must flatter us constantly as the wisest, kindest, bravest, best human beings who ever lived.
I think that this is only partly true. It is permissible, even smart to criticize America if you follow a few rules of etiquette.
1. You CAN criticize America if you are including yourself, which of course, he did not.
2. You can criticize America if the thing you are saying is openly accepted as true by even the group you are criticizing.
3. You need to appeal, not to supposed bad motives, but to our dormant good motives, even if you believe that very few people in your target group are well meaning.
4. You need to criticize, as much as possible, people's errors of method and means, rather than their motives. That is, your method is bad, though you may have a good end in mind.
5. It is safer to criticize those in power rather than minorities or disempowered groups.
SO FOR EXAMPLE
He would have done well to criticize the victim mentality in the black community, esp. since his has already repudiated this mentality in his own pastor's rhetoric.
1. In doing so, he's already got point one down (he's black).
2. The counterproductivity of black victimhood is becoming accepted in general, and in the black community itself (rev. wright aside), as evidenced by the growing number of black leaders and authors saying so. not to mention the latest social science reports indicating that the main cause of black poverty in America is absentee fathers.
3. OK, perhaps he can not attack the victim mentality directly and be successful, but perhaps he can, as he did somewhat already, emphasize the huge gains in opportunities and civil rights that blacks do have, and he could encourage blacks to be careful not to blame others for calamities that they themselves are causing, like black on black violence, drug use, out of wedlock children, etc.
He could appeal to their own history of black values, including faith, family, and funk. ;)
4. He could also laud efforts that have the right means to ends, like black entrepreneurs and microloans, rather than encouraging people to make headway illegitimately through drug sales and blaming whitey.
5. Rather than attacking the poor black folks, he could criticize powerful black leaders like Farrakan, Wright, and others who promote a disempowering victimhood.
ANYWAY, my point is that, though you are correct that politicians who want to win the public's favor probably should appeal to our sense of accomplishment and pride, and risk losing favor by painting America in a bad light, there is a proper way to critique, and he made all the wrong mistakes.
What he really did was attack AMERICANS, not America, the PEOPLE rather than the leaders, HIS OPPONENTS rather than himself and his own group, and he made assumptions about their MOTIVES instead of their methods.
Well, I'm one of humanity's enemies, so what do I know?
btw: He didn't attack anyone. He diagnosed a problem. He also didn't attack America. It's a sad commentary for all sides that legitimate discussion which happens to include criticism is now forbidden territory. Hillary, the eternal cynic and hack politician, instantly jumped on him, lying to portray herself as some blue-collar, shot chugging, hunter (after revealing her worth at over 100 million dollars!). For either Hillary or McCain to portray themselves as non-elitists in solidarity with the average working-class stiff is hilarious beyond words. They're all millionaires! Why is it so terrible for Obama to point out the desperate situation of so many working class Americans and what they turn to in their desperation? Oh, that's right, I forgot: a black man criticizing white people! God forbid.
btw2: If Hillary wins, I will sit out the election.
btw3: And can we please stop this nonsense about "victimhood"? Sometimes there really are victims, and there really are bad guys. You can't just dismiss the whole problem with a wave of your hand because it implies a criticism of you and you're tired of hearing about it (and the guilt it generates). Racism still exists in America; there still are racists in America; black people (and others) are still the targets of bigotry in America. Are things better than they were? Yes. Should the targets of this bigotry do everything to help themselves? Yes. But that doesn't negate the fact that they still have much to contend with (including racism, sexism, and homophobia) that stacks the deck against them.
Sometimes there really are victims, and there really are bad guys. You can't just dismiss the whole problem with a wave of your hand because it implies a criticism of you and you're tired of hearing about it (and the guilt it generates).
I and many black leaders are tired of it, not because of guilt, but because many of us came up out of poverty in a couple generations by hard work, sacrifice, and perseverance, and so have many non-whites. The problem seems clear that there is a special problem in the black community, and it's not whitey, nor the system. It's self-destructive values and behaviors that they themselves perpetuate. The kids are victims of their own parents' errors and largely self-pitying world view, not the errors of society.
Racism still exists in America; there still are racists in America; black people (and others) are still the targets of bigotry in America.
Actually, I think most of the racism today is practiced by the minorities themselves against whites, not the other way around. Anti-black racism is marginal today, and most of the negative opinions people like myself have are birthed, not out of some idea that blacks are inferior, but that the black culture is putrefied with misogyny, bitterness and unforgiveness, hedonism, promiscuity, gross materialism, and justification of hatred. And liberals play right into their warped world view by supporting it.
. But that doesn't negate the fact that they still have much to contend with (including racism, sexism, and homophobia) that stacks the deck against them.
Hey, look, I'm the victim of christophobia, theophobia, europhobia, heterophobia, and maleophobia. I get insulted all the time for being a white male, a christian, a father of many children, you name it. Maybe the government should protect me from the insults by people like Obama. Maybe they can even give me money for my pain.
When I hear people complaining about how they are being held back by racism, all I hear is childish whining. Two decades ago, ok. Now? BS. I don't have any guilt at all over such irresponsible blather. I have Mexican relatives and friends working as garbage collectors, roofers, babysitters, and day workers. I don't see them thugging around, selling drugs, killing one another.
Sure, that happens in LA and some other places, but the mexican culture is not filled with smut like the black subculture. At this point, they've got mostly themselves to blame.
Gee, my heart bleeds for you.
On other words, he made a dead on accurate political assessment which the media, as well as Aaron, Seeker, and Ben, are misconstruing as a cultural assessment. Conservatives have a talent for manufacturing controversy out of thin air. I just wish that instead of talking about their minutiae, we could focus on real issues like the economy, war, environment, etc. I think the next thing they will demand is for Obama to drink hemlock, ala Socrates.
One more thing, only fools would believe Obama is a Marxist communist. Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses." So, since Obama is very religiously devout, that inherently makes him one of the "masses." He'd have to be insulting himself. Nice spin you served up, but only conservatives can eat that crap.
"So, since Obama is very religiously devout, that inherently makes him one of the "masses." ——-.
There is nothing obvious except that he is a bigot and a racist. He is religious? You can do anything religiously(jog,read,etc…). A Southside racist church is contrary to being a Christian. Open your eyes everyone …
Its not just religion now being an opiate, but guns and hate for deeper shades of melanin also. A person who grows up as he did outside the US(mainland)can not or will not be able to understand what makes the fly over Americans who they are, the soul of America.
Only a fool would believe he is not of the far left(Marxist)school of politics. Its all spin now, but thank God there was a person there to record the words from the mouth of the man in his insulated snobbish environment. Sorry, spin spin away. No matter. He is such an elegant speaker that some have even passed out in the presence of his angelic being. I do not think he misspoke as he stated. The comfort zone allowed his thought to flow, he was preaching to the choir.
One who has respect for those who put God over government, for those who do not look toward DC for guidance or to be the source of solutions to everyday problems, for those who exercise their 2ndA God(not gov given)right, would not use the words he used. Look at his past words, over the last few years and his standing on these things and you get the picture. One who does not have respect for these basic concepts of freedom should not be considered.
Hey, but he is wearing his flag pin now! Maybe I was all wrong? Spin Bommy, spin …
seeker – louis – cin – aaron, do you guys own firearms?
From an article on the Obamunifier:
"Neither of the Democrats has even voted outside their party line more than a slight percentage, let alone authored significant bills on controversial topics. Obama voted with his party 97% of the time, after discounting the 39% of the votes he missed in this session of Congress. Clinton also gets 97%. McCain: 88%, a number that might surprise Republicans." ——->
Looks like the ultra lib has no experience in creating a "Heaven on Earth", since he is a 97% party hack. No unifying principles evident.
Here's my problem – you can't both say Obama was right and say conservatives are making it up. Either what Obama said was right and he (and his supporters) should own up to it. Or conservatives made it sound like he was going after Middle America. You can't have it both ways.
Louis, don't go into the gutter and claim this has anything to do with his race. If Clinton (or McCain) had said this I would say they were stupid to say it, too. It's sad that no one dare make a negative comment about him because of course we must be racist. I guess this is that honest dialogue about race he wanted us to have. Questioning/Disagreeing with Obama = racism.
Many people (Obama included in last night's debate) are saying that the comment was in reference to people not trusting the government so they turn ("cling" or "focus") on something else. For me, I don't turn to my religion because the government sucks. I don't hold policy ideas because the government didn't find me a job. My principles and the things I value in life are not dictated by who's in the White House and how much I feel the government is listening to me. It's insulting to me to suggest otherwise.
If people cling to religion, guns, xenophobia because the government doesn't listen. Will they turn from those when Obama is elected? Will everyone suddenly start abandoning their faith because finally the government will get me everything I needed? It was a stupid comment to make. It's okay for you to admit that Obama is not perfect. He can make a verbal mistake. I mean, y'all haven't really bought into the whole Messiah thing have you?
I have no problem with someone criticizing America or Americans or things that may be heard to hear if it needs to be said. I'm waiting for someone to talk about hard truths about mortgages and personal responsibility. It comes across as insulting when you are speaking to one group of people about how another group of people is so pitiful they need our help. "Please elites in San Fran listen to this sob story about how poor Middle America has it. You must vote for me so we can save them from these things they cling to." That's how it sounds to those of us in Middle America (ie conservative America).
Cin, I'm all for having a debate about actual policy ideas instead of "CHANGE and HOPE!" The problem is that the whole debate so far has been about rhetoric and how words are powerful. Isn't that what Obama said? You can't switch it now, when Obama misspeaks.
I'm not trying to equate him to Marx. If you actually read my post instead of seeing what it was about and jumping in to comment you will see that I wrote:"I'm not going to question Sen. Obama's devotion to his faith…" and "he sought to diffuse the statement by referring to his faith as a "bulwark" and that he was not trying to demean the very faith he embraces."
In that comment you are doing what you say conservatives are doing. I said politically this would be a problem for Obama because people were comparing it to Marx's statement. I said it may be more harmful than Wright. That is in a complete political environment.
Ben, I do not own a gun. Well, my granddad gave me a 4-10 shotgun when I was younger, but I only shot it a handful of times. I proudly support the right of Americans to own firearms, but I myself am not a big gun person.
If I missed any points that I should have responded to let me know. But I will probably be away from the computer until next week. I'm going up to the seminary to try to find jobs, etc. for when we move in June.
Than you for answering aaron. Just building a demographic of those who post here(I am what Obama would call a gun nut to be perfectly open).
I hope all goes well in your travels, keep the faith.
LOUIS WROTE: Gee, my heart bleeds for you.
So you see my point exactly. The same reason that your heart does not bleed for me is that I can't use such bigotry as an excuse for laziness and blame shifting. This is why my heart doesn't bleed for race baiters and excuse makers who blame the largely non-existent racism for their troubles.
CIN WROTE: On other words, he made a dead on accurate political assessment which the media, as well as Aaron, Seeker, and Ben, are misconstruing as a cultural assessment. Conservatives have a talent for manufacturing controversy out of thin air.
I agree that he meant well, and that this controversy is largely created out of context to pillory him, in large part, painting him with bad motives when he had good.
Unfortunately, though, I do think that while he is correct about people being cynical about government, he made a HUGE blunder, not only TACTICALLY by using words that could be misconstrued, but FACTUALLY.
He used a negative caricature of his opponents (who he was trying to sway to supporting him, ironically), assuming that they love their God, their guns, and their country because they are frustrated and afraid. That IS an error on his part.
And as I said, what is really telling about this is NOT that he is a racist, but rather, that he has bought into the liberal kool-aid that views the right as 'poor, uneducated, and easily led.'
In a sense, he made a Fruedian slip – he doesn't MEAN to think that way, but due to the influence of those like pastor Wright and liberal anti-conservatives, he can't help betraying his ACTUAL world view. It just slips out.
It would be like a white racist saying "We really need to have compassion on poor blacks, because we know they're just poor, uneducated, and basically un-evolved. I don't mean that as a slam, it's just the way it is, right?" ("I don't apologize for being right.")
So i think the conservative view on this is not that Obama was a real racist with bad motives, but rather, he means well but is saddled with a foundation of liberal and black-liberation theology that is part of him, and slips out when he doesn't mean it to.
Ben, I don't own a gun, but I know how to shoot a shotgun and a handgun. I actually like shooting clays (5-stand), and I totally support the right to own a firearm. I think it's consistent with Christianity, as I related in Christian Pacifism, Christian War and Dealing with Islam: Passive or Active Resistance?.
I think it is regrettable that we need to resort to lethal means to protect ourselves, and I understand why some would rather die a victim that kill someone who is probably going to hell. But my balance of priorities is to protect my family.
If I thought I needed a handgun in my house, I would seriously consider getting one. The only reason I would not is that I have children, and also, sometimes violence begets violence, and I may want to exercise my faith that I need to trust God to protect me. Sometimes, that is the correct stance. Other times, like in the Sudan, Christians finally decided to stop getting slaughtered, and they fought back.
If someone came into my house with the intent to do harm, and I had a handgun, I'd give them a quick verbal warning, and if they persisted, I would then aim for the center of their chest and start shooting.
“He used a negative caricature of his opponents (who he was trying to sway to supporting him, ironically), assuming that they love their God, their guns, and their country because they are frustrated and afraid.”
No Seeker, he didn’t make a caricature of anyone…
Basically, it’s an accurate political assessment of wedge issues, not a critique of cultural issues. Conservatives, and much of the MSM is construing his comments incorrectly as, “assuming that they [small town blue collars in PA] love their God, their guns, and their country because they are frustrated and afraid.” The correct political assessment is that they vote wedge issues because they are frustrated with Washington. He’s not commenting on the cultural issues of religion, guns, anti-immigration. He’s commenting on them as political issues. His gaff is that people are not nuanced enough to pick up on that.
Aaron, you’re not going to be able to paint a religious man as someone who believes “religion is the opiate of the masses.”
Ah, here is the video Seeker…
Rachel Maddow: Puts Bitter-Gate in Perspective
Scarborough makes your point Seeker, then Rachel sets him straight. He goes on to end making her point about people voting against their economic interests on wedge issues.
Cin, thanks for proving my point that you don't (or at least didn't) read my post or my comments before making an assumption and posting purely on what you think that I think about this issue based on a liberal stereotype of conservatives. I'll just say again go back and read my post (and my comment) where I referenced religion and Obama.
His gaff is that people are not nuanced enough to pick up on that.
Where have I heard that before? Oh that's right every time a liberal misspeaks or makes a verbal mistake, it's not that they messed up. It's that conservatives are too stupid to understand it.
Cin, part of the problem is that you, Louis (or Obama) don't understand why this is offensive to those of us from Middle America. We don't cling or focus on those things because the government (good or bad). Presidential economic policies do not cause us to focus on religion or any other issue. Those things are principles or values for us that will outlast any and all presidents. I'm not going to suddenly be "unclingy" when Obama gets elected and rights all wrongs.
The correct political assessment is that they vote wedge issues because they are frustrated with Washington. That's false and insulting. I vote the way I vote because of my principles. Washington does not determine that. Economic circumstances do not determine that. No circumstances and politicians determine that. It is a slam at me and other Americans to say that our principles are merely a by-product of our frustration with government not giving us more free stuff.
That thought process is why liberals will never "get" Middle America. They think there has to be some explanation as to why we are not "nuanced" enough to embrace liberal positions. "It must be a bad economy and distrust of Washington that leads them to those ideas. It can't be that they actually believe them as principles." That was the mindset behind his comments and behind yours and Louis'. As a Middle American, I disagree with them and find them insulting and if we have learned anything from liberals it's that no one else has the right to tell me what I should or should not be insulted by. I can be insulted by any and everything if I want – that's a liberal promise.
"…especially as people are beginning to compare his statements to another political philosopher who wanted change."
No, it's not a valid comparison.
I repeat my observation: people who already dislike Obama will use this against him. No matter what he really meant, they will attack him because of what they wanted him to mean. Thus, a pointless conversation.
Politics as usual.
"We don't cling or focus on those things because the government (good or bad)."
No kidding, Aaron. No one said small town people do. They do vote on wedge issues against their economic interests though, correct? Even Scarborough admitted that, which is Obama's point. You can feel insulted all you want, but it's under a false or misconstrued pretense. Obama simply told a political truth that people such as yourself are misconstruing as a cultural critique. I know I'm bitter after 8 year of Chimpy McChimp Bush.
No, it's not a valid comparison. Maybe so. In fact, I agree with that. But it's not going to stop people from doing that unfortunately. That was my point. This may hurt him more politically than the Rev. Wright thing.
Cin, your interpretation of his words may be correct. His apology and explanations have no helped to clarify it. But my main point was (and is) that it was a stupid thing to say politically – especially about whom and to whom he said it. That made it worse. Can you not admit that?
"In a sense, he made a Fruedian slip – he doesn't MEAN to think that way, but due to the influence of those like pastor Wright and liberal anti-conservatives, he can't help betraying his ACTUAL world view. It just slips out."——->
It slips out because it is what he thinks to be true. The mouth speaks out of the hearts abundance.
"It's very obvious that Senator Obama is being an advocate for the working class in small towns, not a detractor…"——->
Hey, but he is wearing his flag pin now! Maybe I was all wrong? Spin Bommy, spin …
Well, we of small town nature do not need him. Sorry Bommy.
Thank you seeker for answering my gun question. I also have firearms that I use, mostly target practice, altough I do have guns for defensive purpose and have taught my wife. Last resort, but they are there. My view of defense of my own life is quite different than the protection of my family(wife and child).
I am seeing the fissure that Bommy spoke about(god/guns/hate)reflected here so far in our participating group. Interesting.
"Can you not admit that?"
Yes, I've already admitted above that it is indeed a gaff in the sense that people can use it against him, and will misconstrue his motivations. But I don't think the political observation was itself, stupid. I'm very bitter with Washington! You know I am too :) I don't feel insulted when he points that out though and the things I cling to are different. I cling to the Cubs, philosophy, literature, politics, and yes, my brother and I have guns in the house and I have a permit.
What I don't understand, and maybe this is because I'm so far to the left of you, is if conservatives genuinely take offense, when I don't, or if they are just playing political games to make this into a big deal, like Hillary is.
if conservatives genuinely take offense, when I don't, or if they are just playing political games to make this into a big deal, like Hillary is.
It's a little of both. Some neocons are saying that he meant to insult people, and that he's a closet racist. They also enjoy catching him in gaffs and playing them up.
They feel justified in doing so, in part, because of the media's incredible positive bias towards him, portraying him as some messiah.
But here, I don't think we are doing that. What we are saying, though, is something more sinister (seriously), and that is, although he means well, he is steeped in black-liberation and liberal anti-conservative thought (most neocons are motivated by fear and ignorance), so that even though he may know it's wrong, it is such a part of him and his subconscious world view, his REAL world view (not just the best foot he understandably puts forward) he can't help making such gaffes (Freudian slips).
We are saying that though he means well, his world view is closer to the arrogant, elite, 'Marxist' leftists than either he or his party will admit, and make him unfit.
Well Seeker, that just means that when I ask if conservatives actually believe their BS about Obama or just use it for political reasons, the answer is "a little of both." As is said before, it's hard to imagine that any sane person can actually think Senator Obama is an African American racist Marxist communist. If you can get Americans to actually believe that, then we all deserve to be replaced as a world super power. Americans wouldn't deserve any respect from anyone on principle.
Instead of being interested in the economy, war or environment, for the next President you guys are more interested in tabloid issues. I can't understand why you forsake substance for guilt by association and gaffs. You are totally in tune right now with Hillary Clinton's style. How ironic that the politician you despise most, you have more in common with. The problem is, you've already lost. McCain is not your candidate and I'm sure that if elected, he will drive the wedge deeper into the republican party between the conservatives and the moderates. You know very well, McCain will do everything he can to rid his party of the unhealthy influence the right wing imposes on it. For me, though McCain is my 3rd choice of 3, I like him. True conservatives, not so much. :)
Instead of being interested in the economy, war or environment, for the next President you guys are more interested in tabloid issues.
I am interested in those things, but I have already decided NOT to vote for Obama because of his stands on these things.
The ONLY interesting thing about him now is whether or not he is man with a nice veneer, or one who hides his true agreement with his pastor, and with the negative stereotypes he seems to buy into about his political opponents, even if he means well.
Obama seems to be self-destructing, and I suspect that more negative stuff, true or not, spun or not, will surface about him as we progress towards the elections.
"What I don't understand, and maybe this is because I'm so far to the left of you, is if conservatives genuinely take offense, when I don't, or if they are just playing political games to make this into a big deal, like Hillary is." ——->
It because we(conservatives)know that they(far left … the left has drifted onto nutty ground this cycle)are anti-gun, wanting to follow the lead of the Socialist elitist govs of Europe, or something a bit more evil.(Philly and Chicago, just to name two cities, are trying to pass anti gun laws in violation of their own state Constitutions .. no matter what either Dem poli says about not taking your "huntin" gun. They refuse to see that the 2ndA is not about hunting). We know this, but it is always denied, so when the most left of leftists speaks from his heart and lets his deepest thoughts flow, well, we all heard it. God/religion and firearms is intertwined in American culture. Deeply intertwined, they are birthrights. Its insulting for a poli to speak in such a manner.
Not to mention Wright, Rezko, the Weather Underground terrorist outfit and serving on the Woods foundation with its leader, fascist/pseudoreligion, etc. There is a helluva lot more here.
And I think that what we are going to see is that obama has a pattern of association with unsavory people like wright, and he fails to stand up to them or complain, but goes along silently as if it doesn't matter. This is not mere guilt by association, this is, at best, moral laziness, and at worst, silent agreement.
"This is not mere guilt by association, this is, at best, moral laziness, and at worst, silent agreement."
This is tabloid stuff that conservatives adore like a pig wallowing in it's own crap. As you've admitted, conservatives have already made up their mind. Now, their goal is to assassinate Obama's character through guilt by association and tabloid sleaze, right? You're simply trying to emulate Karl Rove and keep up a facade that flag pins are important. None of these issues actually mean anything at all to you, because you've already decided that the "D" at the end of Senator's Obama's name is anathema. There is nothing left for you to discuss but manufactured wedge issues, like Wright and the meaning of "bitter."
Why don't you do some posts in the future on McCain's stance on the big issues and why you disagree or disagree with him? I haven't seen anything criticizing McCain since he became the presumptive Republican nominee. That would be far more substantial than something made up, like "bittergate." Oh ya, I forgot, he has an "R" at the end of his name. He's off limits now.
I just thought of something else. The more play these side issues get now, the harder it will be for republicans to resurrect them in the general election and make people actually care about them… again. If they over play their hand, they will get far more backlash than poor Hillary is getting after last night's debate. I've never contributed to a political campaign in my life, but I made a decision to do so after last night's MSM debacle.
I agree with Cin: the attacks on Obama are little but the same old "gotcha" attack politics that we've seen for years. This is understandable coming from the right (as they practically invented it), but to see Clinton indulge it is truly disturbing. It could be she's trying to scuttle Obama's chances so she can run again in 2012. How about some discussion of the credit crisis, or Iraq, or the environment, or crime, or the deteriorating infrastructure, or the increasing deficit, or Iran, or terrorism, or increasing poverty, etc.
But no, Republicans only care what Obama's minister said or whether he really hates America or not. Cineaste is right, if these stupidities make the difference, America doesn't deserve to maintain is position in the world.
"the attacks on Obama are little but the same old "gotcha" attack politics that we've seen for years."—–>
As these situations keep stacking up, and my friends(my best McC voice)there will be more, is this a defense libs are going to be comfortable with? I know, his base will never change, he is the one, whatever. But…his past and path is littered with this crap and he dodges his own personal responsibility by "never seeing", "never hearing", "mincing words", blah blah. And this guy wants to be CinC??? Come on.
I agree that these are mostly gotcha politics, low blows meant to spin opinion against obama.
HOWEVER, they are not just that. I think there is a reasonable component of this, which is that his inclusiveness gospel is probably a political veneer, hiding a more sinister reality, which is that he is a hardened far-left leaning politician, with close relational ties and *philosophical agreement* with people like Wright, Farrakan, this former 60's radical who agrees with bombing American buildings, and who the heck knows what else.
Now, I know that it probably looks worse than it is – as Colmes asked last night on Hannity and Colmes, 'does that mean that anyone who attended the million man march is not suitable for president?'
As I said, I like obama as a person, he's very well spoken, and an appealing and likable personality. However, the main reason I won't vote for him is that he is a fiscal and social liberal – he's pro-choice, he's promised to raise taxes (in a recession?!?), raise government spending, and probably support many of the destructive liberal social policies like affirmative action, reduction of school choice, and pro-gay legislation.
And I do think that these gotcha moments, though unfair in one sense, are revealing his very liberal, anti-conservative world view, which is important, not to neocons or libs, but to undecided moderates – you know, the ones who will decide the election!
…with close relational ties and *philosophical agreement* with people like Wright, Farrakan, this former 60's radical who agrees with bombing American buildings, and who the heck knows what else.
Yes, this is dirt. And what conservatives do it mix it up with the water of spin to create mud. Then they throw it at anyone with a "D" behind their name. Your goal is to assassinate Obama's character through guilt by association and tabloid sleaze, right? As I said before, it's hard to imagine that any sane person can actually think Senator Obama is an African American anti-American racist Marxist communist unpatriotic terrorist antisemitic Muslim out of touch elitist deceiver. And you glean all this by what means? Guilt by association. Don't concentrate on the real issues like the economy, the war, the environment, etc. Let's stay focused on the trivial name calling. Oh, but then you pivot and say he's "an appealing and likable personality." BARF! I'm just waiting for conservatives to add "genocidal" to the list because Obama read about Hitler in history class when he was 12. Oh my! Stop the presses! This is getting old. Any word yet on McCain's lobbyist associations? No? Any big criticisms of McCain at all? Off limits now, huh? Ya, I thought as much.
McCain's association with right-wing wingnut christianists like Falwell and Haggerty are enough to disqualify him in my mind. Never mind what he's like as a person or his beliefs and positions, it's his associates which should sway us. Also, he's too old and he was probably brainwashed in North Vietnam. Do we really want a "Manchurian Candidate"? Also, his wife steals other people's recipes for their website under her "old family recipes."
Disqualified!
it's hard to imagine that any sane person can actually think Senator Obama is an African American anti-American racist Marxist communist unpatriotic terrorist antisemitic Muslim out of touch elitist deceiver.
He's not, he's just sympathetic or apathetic towards his friends who are. He doesn't just associate with these people, he supports them with his time and money.
No? Any big criticisms of McCain at all?
Bring them on, I say.
McCain's association with right-wing wingnut christianists like Falwell and Haggerty are enough to disqualify him in my mind.
I think it's Haggee, but if you think that disqualifies him, you should say so. I don't think it does. Those guys may seem crazy to you, but what they've said just doesn't bother me that much. While racist and islamo-apologetic speech does worry me, 'homophobic' speech does not, unless they are calling for violence or persecution.
I understand that you might think that using such 'guilt by association' techniques is superficial and sleazy. I do to. But I think more than that is going on with Obama.
For example, McCain certainly doesn't go to their churches, nor does he pal around with them or give them money and awards – he merely sought their endorsement. Can't you see the difference? If you say 'no difference,' I'd say you are being dishonest. You might not think the difference matters, but there is a significant difference.
he's too old
I'd say that's a valid criticism, and one reason to vote for a more vigorous candidate from a younger generation. That might not be the best reason, but it is valid.
My bottom line is that obama is a poor candidate because:
(a) he supports liberal solutions which I think are bad for the economy and society
(b) he lacks experience
(c) he associates, nay, pals around with and is sympathetic or apathetic to racists. Sure, he says he's not, but his associations don't match his words. Because his level of association with these people is more than passing, this is more than just guilt by association – it's more like guilt by fraternization – i.e. they are more like brothers (or mentors) than mere acquaintances. That makes me doubt his very 'professional' sincerity.
But point A is most important, and points b and c should be considered by people who are unsure.
You care to do the same analysis on McCain? Or is it beneath you?
"African American anti-American racist Marxist communist unpatriotic terrorist antisemitic Muslim out of touch elitist deceiver." —–>
You forgot inexperienced.
"Do we really want a "Manchurian Candidate?" —–>
We do. BHO, hence the Obamessiah moniker.
"he's too old" —–>
Nah. I would rather have someone who has actually sacrificed something for the country, exuding honor and bravery than someone who says they tried to enlist and obviously did not, being of the "hey hey, ho ho .." 60's gen, OR someone who does not understand "fly over" American's and who's only worry is which size double latte to pick up at Starbucks.
who's only worry is which size double latte to pick up at Starbucks
How can one answer this? It's just idiotic and disqualifies you from serious consideration.
"he's too old, I'd say that's a valid criticism"
Okay, I totally disagree! I think age discrimination is aiming below the belt. You can joke about it, but it's not a meaningful reason why Senator McCain should not be president. To me, it's another tabloid issue. Good for a laugh but not much else.
"(a) he supports liberal solutions which I think are bad for the economy and society"
Valid.
"(b) he lacks experience"
Valid. Obama does have more legislative experience than Hillary though. He's also passed more significant legislation, that I know of, in 3 years than John McCain has in 25. McCain Feingold and…?
(c) "He's not, he's just sympathetic or apathetic towards his friends who are. He doesn't just associate with these people, he supports them with his time and money."
This is also known as guilt by association. You are using it to build a caricature of Senator Obama to assassinate his character. Obama already trashed this in the debate.
On a side note, only a complete fool would say the Senator Obama is comparing Ayers to Senator Coburn. Doing so is not only wrong, but it makes Obama's point. Soon the main stream media and conservatives will be asking how many degrees of separation Barack Obama has from Kevin Bacon and if that association can be construed as supporting Kevin Bacon in both time and money. Do conservatives have anything real they can use against Obama or is this all we can expect?
"How can one answer this? It's just idiotic and disqualifies you from serious consideration."
Louis, I don't even bother to read his comments anymore.
I think age discrimination is aiming below the belt.
Well, I don't think that considering his age *has* to be age discrimination. I mean, if he was 60, maybe.
For instance, there is no way I would vote for Cheney, because he might die in office. Also, like it or not, McCain would be the oldest first term president ever, over 70! Don't you wonder if dementia and fatigue will be a problem with him? I mean, in his last term, the venerable Reagan had to take significant naps daily.
I just think that it is a valid criticism, one which he has had to fend off with evidences of his mental and physical stamina.
This is also known as guilt by association.
I agree to an extent, and I agree with Obama's response. But i still think that he is much more chummy with these objectionable people than merely being acquainted with or on friendly terms with people like Coburn.
While there is some regrettable character assasination going on here, what gives it a margin of credibility is that Obama's association with Wright, by extension Farrakan, and Ayres seems much more than collegial friendships.
The MSM and debates
AND btw, I think the debate showed how the liberal media now sucks at running debates because they can't get past their own partisanship – the previous mediators were in the tank for Obama, throwing him softballs while grilling Clinton, while this latest one was the opposite.
Meanwhile, reputable news organizations like Fox continually prove that they know what it means to be fair and balanced, and what it means to run a good debate.
It seems that every time I watch Hannity or O'Reilly, they have at least one person from each side of the issues, or MORE from the liberal side (of course the host is conservative) – well, except on H&C, where they have a permanent liberal hosting the show with Hannity (Colmes).
The MSM news outlets are sinking due to their liberal slant, and losing ratings and money because of it. They deserve it too.
Is that all that you gleaned? It was not a question, but a statement pointing out his inexperience and that the type of everyday decisions that he makes/made as an Illinois senator pales in comparison to the truly tough and life altering decisions McC had to make as a POW every day for 5 years. It kinda ties in with the "actually sacrificed something for the country" aspect of my comment. But even on its face, I would say that my comment is closer to the truth than not. Gosh, I thought you guys were quicker than that.
BTW:I think Bommy bombing out the other night has unhinged y'all.
"For instance, there is no way I would vote for Cheney, because he might die in office."
I call BS on this. If Cheney was running against Obama or Clinton, you most definitely would vote for him, even if he was 100 years old.
"But i still think that he is much more chummy with these objectionable people than merely being acquainted with or on friendly terms with people like Coburn."
Again, BS. Show your evidence that Obama was more "chummy" with Ayers than Senator Coburn. Just trying to keep you honest Seeker, again.
"AND btw, I think the debate showed how the liberal media now sucks at running debates because they can't get past their own partisanship"
Ummm, that first half of the debate was what FOX would have done. In fact, the Ayers question was from [drum roll] Sean Hannity.
"the previous mediators were in the tank for Obama, throwing him softballs while grilling Clinton, while this latest one was the opposite."
You are confusing the SNL skit with reality. "Tank" was the word used in the skit. I watched the MSNBC debate and it's obvious you didn't.
"…reputable news organizations like Fox"
Reputable and FOX News. Oxymoron. The Spanish Inquisition was more impartial than O'Reilly and Hannity. And, isn't the name Alan Colmes synonymous with the word "doormat?"
"The MSM news outlets are sinking due to their liberal slant, and losing ratings and money because of it."
ABC is certainly slipping now that they emulated FOX tactics in the 1st half of the "debate." No substance, all spin.
I call BS on this. If Cheney was running against Obama or Clinton, you most definitely would vote for him, even if he was 100 years old.
LOL. How about "i wouldn't vote for cheney * in the primaries * :)
"LOL. How about "i wouldn't vote for cheney * in the primaries"
You dodged my point. I say again, "I call BS on this. If Cheney was running against Obama or Clinton, you most definitely would vote for him, even if he was 100 years old."
If Cheney was running against Obama or Clinton, you most definitely would vote for him, even if he was 100 years old."
Absolutely, because age, while it could be an issue, is not a primary one. But that doesn't mean it is not important, or worth being important.
Better a conservative vp taking the presidency than a liberal. ;0
So, you've contradicted yourself. You said, "For instance, there is no way I would vote for Cheney, because he might die in office." See, that's a load of $%#^.
How bout this lil lib … http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v…