Posted on 10/10/2008 1:07:11 PM PDT by lowbridge
John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as "not one of us," I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.
At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, "Kill him!" At one of your rallies, someone called out, "Terrorist!" Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.
Shame!
John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
That is a whole other discussion, I think. Is today's dialogue indeed more coarse that ever? To one extent it is it is. The anti-war movements of the 60's began a decline.
"Hey! Hey! LBJ!
How many kids did you kill today?"
While MLK's rhetoric in the civil right movement was lofty and ennobling, we also heard H. Rap Brown
"I say violence is necessary. It is as American as cherry pie."
Before this, first in radio and then in television, there was a lid kept on what was permitted over the public airwaves. Of course, there was also a consensus about thet; due in part, I believe to the nation's shared struggles with economic hard times and then with the second world war.
I know that before radio and television, there were very contentious political struggles and passionate and even inflammatory rhetoric was used. But, it was in print and took days, if not weeks to reach beyond the immediate audience.
Today, it's instant. And as Marshall McCluhan said many years ago, "The medium is the message." We are still learning what that really means.
And wasn't it Obama himself that told supporters to "Get in the faces of those people!"
The “Bradley effect” is not caused by racism, but by viscious anti-racism. Folks don’t want to be confronted by angry leftists when they don’t want to vote for a black candidate for whatever reason, and ‘go along to get along’ when a pollster calls.
There is ample reason to oppose the election of Barack Obama without appeal to his skin color or ancestry: he is part of the Hyde Park left, and associations with Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi, Rezko, ACORN, Al Mansour, and his childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis are all just symptoms of that fact.
I wouldn’t vote for a member of the Hyde Park left regardless of his or her skin color or ancestry. I’d have the stones to tell pollsters, even odious leftist push-pollsters, even to their face.
Some people don’t have the guts to express their true feelings about a candidate’s ideologies or positions when the candidate is black, hence the Bradley effect.
Schaeffer is off-base here.
Given everything else, I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks shouting provocative things at McCain/Palin rallies were, well, provocateurs. I’ve not heard anything from the campaign that isn’t part and parcel of trying to point out who Obama really is ideologically, and if Schaeffer can’t tell the difference between that and hate-mongering, he really needs to work on spiritual discernment.
I did not see any of this first-hand, since I’ve not been to any political rallies, but I’d heard of Democrat/Lefto partisans offering such edifying and rational discourse (about the Palin family) as the following: “Alaska trailer trash!” “Family of retards!” and “Spay the bitch!”
Mark Morford, Eve Ensler and Sandra Bernhard (Palin will be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she enters Manhattan) are fellow human beings. They do, however, make one wonder about the “”sapiens” part.
Good observation.
However, by and large, differences in opinion, then, were still expressed in terms which wouldn't jar children and horses in the streets; unlike now.
Today, it's instant. And as Marshall McCluhan said many years ago, "The medium is the message." We are still learning what that really means.
Technology is yet advancing so fast, your statement is quite true. The MSM did one hell of a job singing "recession" over the past year; it created a run and panic combined with nefarious misdoings by members of the Democrat Party.
I've shown numerous people the actual definition of "recession". They can't believe their eyes. They ask: So why would my newspaper, my news anchor be using the "R" word?
I usually respond: Yours is a very good question. Why do you think they would? More importantly, it's obvious you've never had an economics course or you'd know the definition. Ask yourself once again... why would the news be lying to you? Who benefits from those lies?
Yes, there is a digital divide. And it isn't all about the use of mobile phones, pc's, etc.
I know Americans work hard. Through all classes. The question is, are they working smart? This is why I think school vouchers are important. Why homeschooling is important. The same people who support the MSM lying about economics have also the power to influence what is and what is not taught to children in schools.
Liberals talk about "inner knowing" -- that there's this inner voice which tells you truth from shinola. I think males have a more finely tuned sense of that, and which is also why I think there is a higher increase in males dropping out of schools, and rebelling.
I think they know at some level they are being lied to. Females will trend to do the dual-lobe synaptic thing of going along with what is being taught.
Yes, even black males, who'd usually support Obama know, that when the system falls apart, they'll be the ones to fight, and risk their lives.
Liberals are now talking about the "Bradley Effect" which is pure, unmitigated BS and crapola. And who gives a rat's behind. Any female who has grown up around females who takes those stupid Cosmopolitan surveys knows in observation, that the females taking those surveys are trying to get approval rather than a "self-assessment".
So, yes, the "Bradley Effect" is about as useful as a Cosmopolitan survey. And that taking part in these surveys is a toss-away opinion. Now contrast those surveys with another: A financial advisor asking you: So, how would you prefer to set-up your IRA? Low risk, moderate risk, high risk?
The latter is where people's pedal hits metal.
So, the above is purely intended to answer in response about the "media being the message". I say, only to a point. The media has been the message, now the pendulum is swinging and arcing in the opposite direction.
I think as society we having entered the newer age of:
If the medium is the message, tell me first what it's going to cost.
It's well-reported and objective, but I must warn you it is also vile.
But there's yet more, and I'm sure he's aware of it, as he does imply such.
These bigots that Mr. Bolt provides quotes from, are actually revealing their core: That is, their brain pans don't go much higher than primate level, or as the Maslow model would portray; survival levels. Their core religion/philosophies have been about sex for decades. Therefore, they can only see through the lens of sex. Yes, the other side of their uber "feminist support" syndrome is "strip her!". Which of course, reveals these people to be unhinged and a danger to themselves, additionally to society at large.
They are nutcakes clinging to their wymmanity and sex-based religion.
This is not necessarily a "bad thing" to FINALLY have exposed.
Some of my so-called "sisters" have treated me this very same way nearly all my life. What do I know about them. They define themselves in terms of sex, they define politics and people in terms of sex.
What is sex to them? Sex is about POWER to them. It's not about sex.
And you'd think, after 30+ years of screeching about rape being about "power" more than sex, they'd have grown a clue.
Oh. Well.
As I've said for decades: These people think with their genitals (everything is about fornication) and have sex with others via their brains (mind-meld). They are a backwards people. Were they children in school in current times? Why, they'd probably be labelled bi-polar.
Really, my only response to Brigitte Bardot would be: "So tell me, what's this thing you have going with animals? What's it really about?"
Yes, Rush does do a good job of this. The true believers of the radical left message have a learning disability in comprehending their hypocriticalness, however. Psychologically, they exhibit manifestations of ADD: they can’t think the obvious through; instead they fast pace their brain pan into “fight ‘it” mode and come up with spins. Spin and spin and spin.
Thanks for the interesting and insightful responses on this thread.
I stand corrected. You made an excellent point. The “Bradley effect” is about race, but is anti-racist, not racist in nature. I got that one wrong. (Don’t tell anyone!)
But now I find myself disheartened because McCain speaks calmly at a rally, clearly intending to demonstrate how presidential he is, and he gets crucified on this website by people who are angry, very angry that he doesn’t foam at the mouth and call Obama an Arab Muslim terrorist socialist fascist. One guy, I think it was “patriot08” said, “McCain has obviously given up.” Others were asking if it was too late to replace him with Romney or Giuliani.
How does it help to say this kind of thing about our own guy? Ronald Reagan would be very disappointed.
Has it not occurred to any of you that McCain has to win independent voters to win the election? Apparently he’s not extreme right-wing enough for you, so he’s some kind of quitter? Hell, he’s running as a maverick, on a platform of change precisely because Bush listened to you guys and went too far! McCain is a REPUBLICAN, not a Libertarian/Anarchist. You want no government at all, go to Somalia. There’s your Libertarian paradise on earth. You can even be a pirate there!
I try to say something nice about McCain, applaud how honorable and presidential he is. Guys like you are ripping him a new one, calling him a quitter, accusing him of throwing the election, and saying, “Oh, whoa is us. We should have gone with Romney or Giuliani.” And I’m the disloyal one? Have you ever heard of Ronald Reagan or the 11th commandment? You’re not only speaking ill of fellow Republicans, you’re insulting and belittling OUR CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. Would it kill you to spin it just a little bit in FAVOR of McCain?
Look, it’s not that hard: “At that Minnesota rally, McCain was presidential, and demonstrated his desire to reach out to independents and even Reagan Democrats. It’s another example of his maverick nature, breaking with the divisive politics of the past.” This has the added advantage of being TRUE.
I used a term there you might not remember, “Reagan Democrats.” Reagan won big because he reached out, across the aisle, to people who were registered Democrats, but weren’t leftist nutjobs. He needed those voters, ‘cause there just aren’t enough of us Republicans.
You might want to check the polls, too. They’ve narrowed a couple of points since McCain “gave up.”
Oh, and quit insulting the Irish.
Clearly that post didn’t hit what I was aiming at. I got quite a few negative responses, some of which PO’d me, but there’s just too many to ignore. Some of it must be what I posted, not only what the oh-so-reasonable people who use terms like “cow flop” in their replies substitute for rationality. I humbly apologize for daring to talk about honor. That’s obviously an antiquated notion that has no place in modern politics. Sorry I even brought it up.
This is a knife fight "my friend." Stay home and order a pizza.
You are quite right that Dubya was not right wing enough for us. So, a fortiori (stop me if I'm going too fast for you) McCain is not right wing enough for us.
Anyone who thinks the Feds have a role in public education is (a)not reading the Constitution with enough care and therefore (b) not right wing enough for me. Anyone who thinks it's appropriate for the government to limit charitable giving by taxation is not right wing enough f or me.
A little more than 150 years ago: in the LIncoln Douglass debates, it was clear that Douglass was for a kind of states rights or a kind of individual right. But it was a spurious kind of "right" because it was the right for dates to determine for themselves whether or not slavery should be legal, and the right of individuals in those states to deal in human lives as though they were commodities.
Today's Democrats are in league with that day's Douglass in that they want to preserve or even to make stronger the "right" to kill an innocent human with impunity. Both slavery and abortion are spurious rights because they cannot be exercised without negating the fundamental rights of other innocent human beings.
While the Democrats trumpeted then and trumpet now their support for abridging the rights of others, they also endeavor to abridge the free exercise of political speech. John McCain shares some blame for this. So not only is he not right wing enough for me, he is not even Republican enough for me, since the Republican party was born to support civil rights and still makes a few futile efforts in that direction, while the Democrats call everything they don't like racist and use whatever means they can to stifle or drown out conservative speech. They are truly the party of oppression, and nearly every time McCain has "reached across the aisle" it has been to join them in their big emphasis on government, small emphasis on every individual right that doesn't normally involve a bed and the genital organs.
It's almost funny. A young lady of my acquaintance expressed shock and horror that people actually yell at those so-called "peace" demonstrators who clamor for capitulation. When I expressed some bemusement at the flipped birds and screamed obscenities I get when I prey in front of an abortuary, she snorted and sneered at me. It is, in her Democrat Zerobama view an abomination to wage war against a known enemy who had defied the UN and attempted to assassinate a former president as we try to keep ourselves safe and, if anything, worse for people to speak against the killing of the innocent.
But this is nothing other than your changing the subject, which often passes on your side as a substitute for an admission that neither reason nor facts support your original argument which was mendacious on its face. (What did you mean by "we" back there in that post and who exactly were you accusing of "embrac[ing] or encourag[ing] racism as a means of winning votes"? Surely not me. I have worked under black men and am currently discussing entering into a business partnership with a black man who is also a good friend. (With the effect of Democrat ideas of finance on our economy the partnership probably won't work out, but that has nothing to do with race, except in the eyes of Democrats and liberals.)
It is your side that is stirring up threats of race conflict while at the same time accusing our side of embracing or encouraging it.
So now is tht false and disgusting allegation too shameful for you too follow up on it? If so, good. Apology accepted. But it might be a better apology if you actually made it instead of trying to change the subject.
The only racist views in this campaign are the ones expressed by those who think that its racist to think it's a bad thing for Obama to have as a political ally a man who is unrepentant for trying what Osama succeeded at.
That’s where you are wrong. It’s the “knife fight” mentality that is shrinking the Republican party. Reagan won a landslide by wooing Reagan Democrats and independents. It might be possible to win with just Republicans and independents. But McCain CANNOT win with just the most rabid corner of the Republican party.
Over there, they’re talking about “Obama Republicans,” I kid you not.
Hell, maybe you are right. Maybe it is a knife fight, for the soul of the Republican Party. There are two Republicans on Mount Rushmore, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. That’s what I want the Republican Party to be, not what Bush has made it. That’s why we have a maverick running on a platform of change.
And I said this on another post, maybe you missed it: check the polls. When McCain said, “Calm down,” and acted presidential, his poll numbers went UP.
Your second mistake.
We have proof of nobama consorting with African neo-nazis and muslim terrorists.
We have video of the racist nobama spewing racist hate against white people.
His voters registered by the ACORN thugs won’t show up to vote. They’ll be drunk, stoned or sniffing glue.
Nobama won’t even get 35% of the vote. Millions of Hillary supporters hate him. Men will vote against nobama by 70% or more. It will be a massacre at the ballot box for nobama. He won’t know what hit him.
The racist, neo-fascist nobama is going down hard.
And after the Marxist loses the election, the federal government will move in and arrest him for voter fraud, voter intimidation and threats.
Nobama and his thugs are going to prison for life. I’m hoping for a sedition conviction against nobama and his thug leadership, followed by hanging.
And then the liberal morons in the big cities can burn their socialist utopias to the ground. All you nobama supporters in the big city liberal hellholes will end up living in Third World squalor the rest of your lives. You won’t get a penny to rebuild. No more free lunch. You’ll need to rebuild your lives, neighborhoods and businesses by your own effort and prove you’re worthy to rejoin America.
Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.