Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Tracking the left’s faltering moral equivalence argument
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, May 07, 2008

I mentioned the other day how the left was attempting to find McCain's Wright and Ayers. Frank Rich and Steve Chapman have made rather poor attempts. Now, apparently, Roland Martin, a CNN political commenter and journalist, feels inclined to give it a shot.

Michael Wade, at A Second Hand Conjecture, takes a look at Martin's screed and takes it apart quite handily. In the case of Wright, what most of these folks want to do is ignore the relationship of 23 years between he and Obama in order to make the equivalence work. Michael shoots it down while noting that Martin puts a twist on his argument by invoking race:
Martin’s analogy makes no sense, of course, which is why he simply waves his hand at the fact that Wright was Obama’s pastor for twenty-some years. That’s an inconvenient fact for his rant, so it’s mentioned without being addressed, and instead tries to turn it into a racial issue. Martin is trying to set up the meme that Rev. Wright became and issue not because of his racist and anti-American utterings, but because he’s black. The problem, however, is that picking up an endorsement from a crazy, anti-Catholic preacher is just not the same as sitting in a crazy, anti-American, white-hating, marxist-loving, Farrakhan-embracing preacher for over twenty years, not to mention personally choosing him as your spiritual mentor. The former says something about the state of politics for sure in that a candidate is essentially required to pick up such an endorsement in order to get the job. The latter says something about the candidate’s judgment and choice of company and nothing about the state of politics in general (although, I believe it does say something about being in politics in Chicago).
Watch for variations on this theme to continue to emerge from the left as the right continues to hammer the Wright/Obama connection. The left knows that while Democrats may have put this controversy somewhat behind them, it will indeed emerge as an issue again in the general election. And they are going to try all sorts of contorted arguments in the meantime to see if one will gain enough traction to neutralize the problem.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Considering that Obama has already renounced Rev Wright and disowned himself, I don’t think the Wright issue will be be a problem in the general election. But of course, that’s just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
 
Written By: Tom Willlicks
URL: http://
While many may think that the moral equivalence argument will force the Wright/Obama connection to go away, I think the "old news" meme works a lot better to that end. Better yet, they should muzzle Wright.

Meanwhile, the moral equivalence argument just keeps the the Wright/Obama connection alive in voters minds.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Aren’t Bush and Cheney McCain’s Wright and Ayers?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Aren’t Bush and Cheney McCain’s Wright and Ayers?
For people who think like Wright and Ayers, yes.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Yes, Bush and Cheney are practically indistinguishable from Wright and Ayers.

Good grief.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
Not indistinguishable perhaps but as campaign liabilites, far far worse. Morally Bush and Cheney are pretty awful too, but that’s more subject to the reader’s interpretation.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
"Morally Bush and Cheney are pretty awful too"
Uh huh.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Aren’t Bush and Cheney McCain’s Wright and Ayers?
I think Retief’s point, in light of the elections, is that there is no reason to go looking for a "Wright and Ayers" for McCain when you have Bush and Cheney to bang around and associate with McCain.

I can’t say I disagree.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In the case of Wright, what most of these folks want to do is ignore the relationship of 23 years between he and Obama in order to make the equivalence work.

So what? The point here is not to create a non-existent numerical scale of alledged moral fallibility and give Barack Obama a negative number and John McCain a *smaller* negative number. There is no numerical scale.

The simpler version of this narrative is: "John McCain sucks up to crazy angry hateful people just like Barack Obama".

The fact that one of them sucked up longer than the other is a fine moral, intellectual, debater’s point, but politics is a contest of messaging with only a tangential relationship to reality and complex evaluation of any kind.

Obama makes up quite a bit of ground by getting media to publish hateful Hagee statements and pictures of McCain smooching him. It’s exactly the same category of behavior, simply to different extents. The counterargument "McCain does it *less* than Obama is inherently uninspiring. McCain needs a contrast between a dirty Obama and a clean self, not two dirty candidates, one a little bit less so.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
The simpler version of this narrative is: "John McCain sucks up to crazy angry hateful people just like Barack Obama".
You demonstrate the point of the post very nicely.

Obama didnt "suck up" to Wright ... he sought him out, estalished a relationship with him and maintained it for 20+ years.

Now, take that and try to make an equivalent argument for McCain and Hagee.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Obama makes up quite a bit of ground by getting media to publish hateful Hagee statements and pictures of McCain smooching him. It’s exactly the same category of behavior, simply to different extents. The counterargument "McCain does it *less* than Obama is inherently uninspiring. McCain needs a contrast between a dirty Obama and a clean self, not two dirty candidates, one a little bit less so.
The now standard ’you did it first, you do it too’ bs arguments the decent parents taught their kids not to even TRY to make as a defense for wrongdoing.

The difference is we appear to be distressed about this sort of behavior by ’our side’ (that would be rightwingnuts according to your side) when we see it happening.

You on the other hand rather than be distressed by your side, defend it and when pressed shrug it off with a ’you guys do it to’ response.

I already know you can’t see the difference in those two positions.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Just how out of touch is this Obama character.

Barry ought to get with it. He doesn’t even know that he received the endorsement of Hamas, and denying it now ain’t gonna make it go away.

Come to think about it, maybe we finally found something other than the Obama/Wright connection with which to compare McCain/Hagee .. now it’s Obama/Hamas.

Let’s see he didn’t sit in the pews with Hamas for the last two decades, so the fit is much better.

Now my choice is much clearer .. is it MaCain who has the endorsement of some (unarmed) crazy preacher .. or Obama who has the endorsement of Hamas, a group on the State Department’s list of terror organizations ?

Gee .. that’s a real tough call there.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider