Sunday, October 12, 2008

McCain Locks In the White Supremacist Vote. (and what vote is Sarah Palin going for?)

With John's latest verbal assault "in the next debate I will whip his you-know-what" referring to Obama, are we to presume he was throwing out a little code to remind the southern states that might for the first time in decades be leaning towards a democrat, of the good old days when blacks knew their place---and if it wasn't picking cotton it was tied up and at the end of their owner's whip? Or are we to believe that this usually well spoken and learned man is just becoming unglued? He probably resents the implications that he is unstable. Will he really prefer becoming the KKK poster boy, instead? He seemed to be trying to avoid that recently by trying to paint Obama as a decent man at some of his more vehement rallies, and saw the ugly side of some of his supporters when they booed their candidate. Has he decided, like he did years ago with George W. Bush, that if he cannot beat them he should join them?? Now, I am quite sure conservatives will say over-sensitive liberals are just nit-picking. Possibly, but in a year long primary battle with a full field of candidates, the democrats all managed to avoid such verbal blunders (even if their spouses did not always do as well). Or perhaps John was just trying to show that he can put his foot in his mouth as easily and often as his running mate Sarah Palin. I haven't bothered with her much because...well, why bother. But did you know she feels she was exonerated of ethics violations even though the bipartisan commission in Alaska found she violated ethics rules. Foot in mouth or just plain liar? She must be going for the 'liars who can't even get their lies straight' constituency, but I think she already had a lock on that one.

12 comments:

Bruce said...

I hope you're being sarcastic with this one...? He was speaking sports lingo. McCain certainly wasn't referring to slave beatings.

The South would no longer eat that rhetoric anyway.

LHwrites said...

I find it hard to imagine John McCain saying such a thing about Hillary Clinton, and I cannot find any such comments made by him during his Republican primaries about any of his rivals. But, rather than comment any further on your comment, I suggest you read the New York Times Column by Frank Rich from Sunday's Op-ED October 12th: The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama.

eme said...

I must concur about the importance of the Frank Rich article, "The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama." While I do not believe that John McCain is a racist, Frank Rich points out how he has systematically fomented hatred (not legitimate policy differences - hatred) towards Obama. In addition, this is a man who criticized the language that Obama used about Pakistan. He then says he'll "whip" Obama's "you know what." Do we really believe that a man who says he'll "whip" a black man is more skilled at diplomatic language than his opponent? You minimized the importance of language in this instance, but I also recall people expressing outrage at the NY Times referring to "the wall" in Israel because of what it implied. Either language means something, or it doesn't.

Bruce said...

It would certainly have a whole different meaning if McCain said he'd whip Hillary.

The visual is a bit disturbing

Bruce said...

Read the Rich piece. Just a partisan smear piece.

I'm with African-American radio host James T. Harris who called on McCain to hit Obama hard on his associations and left-wing record.

Attacking Obama is not racist...it's politics.

LHwrites said...

I can't agree about the Rich piece. It has been reported everywhere that McCain has been trying to stop the nasty, racist and threatening overture at many of his rallies lately and has been booed for it. You, and especially your running mate, cannot foment hatred in the hope it will get you ahead in the polls and when it doesn't, it is not so easy to turn off! Maybe McCain woke up one day and realized that for the last 40 years no one who could hold rallies like that was getting into national public office. As for associations, the Ayers thing is the dumbest yet. He is a college Professor awarded a PhD. He has done valuable research on education reform. The reason he got these opportunities is he was not tied to the very few fatal instances of Weathermen violence. While I do not agree with his methods, we know that the ideas he and many others espoused turned out to be right about Vietnam, and had we not had a combat-evader in office we may have remembered the lessons of Vietnam and not been so quick to invade Iraq, especially when we were not done with the real terrorists in Afghanistan. As for left wing record, you say that as if it is bad. I will take a left wing record over the tight wing record of George W. or the ineffectual and often right wing record of McCain. Those records have cost lives, ineffectively fought terrorism and nearly destroyed the global economy. That is how they have driven this country towards the left this election year!!!!

Bruce said...

I've seen no candidate 'fomenting hatred'...the attacks you speak of are politics as usual, not hatred.

Bruce said...

You may be interested in a great Washington Post piece by Charles Krauthammer called "Who’s Playing the Race Card?
Here's a few sentences:

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association — with total strangers, mind you — but worse: guilty according to the New York Times of “race-baiting and xenophobia.”

But should you bring up Barack Obama’s real associations — 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers — you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association. Moreover, it is tinged with racism.
--END--

LHwrites said...

I can't agree with this. At no campaign, besides maybe against Lincoln, would you have seen, and certainly in these numbers, people calling for people's death and such. It is not one or two yahoos, but has been reported by many sources as a significant response often taken up by chants of a majority of the crows=d, which fortunately are often smaller then you imply here. If I were to run for President,it will no doubt be brought up about my association with MidEast Soundbites, and my association with the pro-Israel anti-Islam radical BRUCE. My comments will be used against me, and it will be guilt by association, not because I agree with everything Bruce posts, which I clearly don't, but because I clearly hold Bruce in high esteem, regardless of our differences. I can easily see having a religious leadr, maybe not even being present for a aprticular sermon, coming to service and the other peole telling me about it, and my saying "he's at it again" and then speaking to the leader afterward and saying "do you really mean that?" Wright was not his responsibility and no one can find one un-American comment, or agreement with Wright in anything public about Obama. It IS fomenting hatred and McCain seems to understand it better perhaps, than you and Mr. Krauthammer because, worrying about his legacy, win or lose, McCain started actively trying to calm down his audiences and remind them that Obama is not bad or un-American, and received boos himself, from these "yahoos".

LHwrites said...

I did not comment about Ayers because Obama did it best at the debate. Let's be real, Ayers was not tied to fatal events, any lack of punishment was the prosecutors problems, not Obama's, he has reformed and made himself a model citizen since around the time Obama was old enough to vote. Maybe when McCain, Palin and their supporters remember this is about issues more than nonsense, they will start having a chance in this election. Colin Powell found what is going on, and the direction the Republican's are taking, to endorse a Democrat for the first time in 28 or more years. Many will see this as a racial thing. But I suspect Powell never got behind Jesse Jackson. Maybe it is a Racial thing when the candidate is also the best choice.

Anonymous said...

good start

LHwrites said...

Though short, I think it seems clear anonymous was implying an intolerant or a racist remark. Rather than remove it, I thought we might ask why someone who has the courage of his or her convictions would remain anonymous?