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

 
Who’d a thunk - Obama pulls the race card out and slaps it on the table ...
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, June 21, 2008

Well at least it's out in the open. And I'm not the least bit surprised to see it first played by a Democrat and specifically, Barack Obama. What would you expect from the party which invented identity politics?
"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
This, of course, is an obvious attempt to frame the debate - Republicans are mean-spirited, racist, hate-mongers who ain't too fond of furrin' soundin' people. Now, put whatever they say in that frame and you know what to think.

All of that after the only true points in the statement - that he is both young and inexperienced.

In reality no one is going to have to bring up Barack Obama's race or name. Leave that to the Democrats - as they did in the Democratic primary.

All anyone has to do to win is get him away from the tele-prompter, question him specifically (no glittering generalities allowed) about anything to do with foreign policy, national security, trade, energy or taxation, and he'll prove how young, inexperienced and, frankly, dangerously naive he is.

That should be more than enough - but it is interesting to see the Obama Campaign choose to continue their strategy of falling back on race in the Democratic primary during the general election.

Pretty telling.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
b1llIj bxrrwzessmpb, [url=http://nfsawzemcqsa.com/]nfsawzemcqsa[/url], [link=http://majqsfowhshb.com/]majqsfowhshb[/link], http://tyhryytcvlzx.com/
 
Written By: aengdp
URL: http://zxnvbyprkzjw.com/
scuk; naprosyn 741685; va home loans qbh;
 
Written By: scuko39
URL: http://www.patwoodcock.com
This, of course, is an obvious attempt to frame the debate - Republicans are mean-spirited, racist, hate-mongers who ain’t too fond of furrin’ soundin’ people. Now, put whatever they say in that frame and you know what to think.
What could Obama be thinking? Republicans are the most open-minded, least racist people on Planet Earth. Obviously. It’s amazing that Obama would even attempt to suggest otherwise. What is his problem?

By the way, what is the meaning of "furrin’ soundin’"? Is that like Macaca?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Well, we should expect him to make a list and update us every time a Republican makes a racist attack.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
Many people seem to think that education will solve all our problems. More education, we are told (usually accompanied by claims that education is underfunded), will cause the scales to fall from the eyes of the ignorant and prejucdced masses, making them openminded, tolerant, wise, and just all around better people. We will have paradise on earth once everyone has a graduate degree in something. Unfortunately, there are one or two folks who comment here who prove just how foolish that argument is. Idiocy, obtuseness, unreasoning bias, and any other intellectual or mental defect you care to name are flaunted here by one or two who do not even have a modicum of the humility or intelligence required to acknowledge that those they disagree with are not always and totally motivated by evil. They are, perhaps unknowingly, exemplars of what they claim to oppose.
At times I actually envy their certitude and rightousness. It must comforting and inspiring to always be be on the side of truth and justice, fighting the evil and corrupt and educating the ignorant. Unfortunately, such certitude exists only in cartoon characters.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
mkultra:

I believe "furrin" is an attempt on McQ’s part to write in a mock "mean-spirited, racist, hate-mongering" Republican dialect. In plain English, the word would be "foreign". (As in "We don’t cotton to furriners ’round these parts.) It is a reference back to the original Obama quote: "He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name." (Correct me if I’m wrong, McQ.)

You see, Barack Hussein Obama has an interesting name which reflects his cultural heritage. For some time now there has been speculation that the Republicans will attempt to malign him based on his middle name, which bears a striking resemblance to the name of a recently deposed and executed tyrant of Middle-East descent.

I believe that McQ was playing this up by giving an example of how the stereotypical Republican may view Senator Obama’s name, to prove a point about the Obama quote. Specifically that viewing all Republicans as "mean-spirited, racist, hate-mongers" is a gross generalization and intellectually dishonest.

I believe the "macaca" incident to which you refer involved the possible cross generational passage of racist tendencies in the form of a racial epithet to former U.S. Senator Allen, as demonstrated by an unknowing repeating of said epithet on the campaign trail back in 2006. So unless there is some other possible definition of "furrin", I do not believe the two words are connected.

I hope this helped!
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
Pretty much, MK, what the Gipp said.

See, "Furrin" mocks whites and southerners. If you will consult your left-wing handbook, along with Christians and men, this kind of bigotry is acceptable for use.

Cheers!
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
The mask is slipping pretty badly off this lightweight, and he’s basically playing "run out the clock" to try to make it into office before it comes off completely.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yes mkultra. The party of Lincoln is racist while the party of George Wallace, Bull Connor, Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr, those brown-skinned Iraqis are incapable of creating a semblance of a democracy and need to remain under the boot of the massmurdering Saddam Hussein, etc are not racist.

Also, up is down and black is white.

No need to thank me for the lesson I taught you.
 
Written By: Mr Kennedy
URL: http://
Obama is black?
 
Written By: firefirefire
URL: http://
MSDNC has been having a ball all weekend touting that phony baloney Newsweak poll showing Obama with an alleged 15 point lead, 51-36.

Today, however, the Gallup poll shows that Obama is leading not by 15 points, but by 2 points - 46% to 44%.

So, if the Newsweak poll is true (which it isn’t), this is how I characterize it: Obama was winning this election in a run away, until the American people heard this week that he is against more drilling, is thrilled with high gas prices (he who does not care because he rides in a nice fat limo paid for by taxpayers), and broke the rules on campaign financing of campaigns.

So, with the alleged Newsweak poll in mind, it appears that Obama’s fat 15 point lead evaporated in two days. That means his support above 46% is quite weak. I anticipate as gas prices rise more and more that McCain’s will rise to 47%-48% by convention time.

Of course, the dolts at MSDNC won’t tell you this because they are the media outlet for Obama for President, and telling their boneheaded viewers that they truly do want drilling and that Obama could give a hairy crap about them is not in their interest if they want their buddy in the White House come January.

 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Obama is black?
"You mean I’m not white???"
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
The Obama automatically assumes that all Republicans and most white people in general are anti-black racists.
Which from where I stand,makes him an anti-white racist.
Why would I ever vote for a racist for dog catcher nevermind The Presidency?
As a typical white person raised during the turbulent 60’s, I judge The Obama not by the color of his skin(or either of his grandmothers)but by the content of his character. I find that his character and his liberal far left leanings as well as his association with an anti-white pastor for 20 years, disqualify him for my vote to the office he is seeking.
America is ready to elect a man of african decent to the Presidency,The Obama is NOT that man.
 
Written By: firefirefire
URL: http://
I increasingly see politics as divided into the "doers" party and the "mind f#ck" party. The latter includes media, academics, Democrats, race-mongers, Al Gore, environmentalists, feminists, BH Obama, some rent-seeking big businesses, etc. They produce little or nothing, just try to "mind trick" the people who do real production into giving it away via tax increases, dumb treaties, and stupid laws.

Obama is here working a mind trick.
 
Written By: Joseph Somsel
URL: http://
qeWvAF jrjiqskoricc, [url=http://cnjfldyhnfrd.com/]cnjfldyhnfrd[/url], [link=http://whtpgkgyfsvj.com/]whtpgkgyfsvj[/link], http://lnyhiwxdhasz.com/
 
Written By: ekeqqebr
URL: http://rtjtisrvfwpa.com/
Did anyone think he was going to campaign on the issues?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
First of all, Obama is no more qualified to be president than my Uncle Bob. Both have law degrees, married well and accomplished nothing. Bob does know American history and understands the US Constitution, so I guess Bob is more qualified. To say Obama is inexperienced and naive is a gross understatement. His only success in life is as a Daley machine political hack. On merit, his resumé would not land him an interview for job as the CEO of a $100M per year company.

Second, there is the question of integrity. Obama’s stories keep unravelling. His sainted father turns out to be a drunken, wife beating, bigamist, Kenyan marxist who died behind the wheel. There are still issues about Barack’s citizenship. The Trinity UCC and its pastor turn out to be a marxist, black racist sect with an outrageous pastor who is replaced another. His community activities turn out to be scams for Tony Rezko and prerequisites for his political career. Recently, Obama backed out of commitment concerning campaign finance reform. Can the American people be sure Barrack Hussein Obama will do the right thing for America?

Third, can Obama produce the leadership necessary to be Commander in Chief during a war? Never mind his association with unrepentant members of the Weather Underground - an admittedly pro-North Vietnam domestic terrorist organization. Forget about his unwarranted and uninformed criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and about his drug use. Obama is anti-American. He wants America to surrender its sovereignty, culture and future. The military know what is coming if President Obama sits atop the chain of command. How can he lead in a war when he would be ineligible for a commission?

Fourth, there are his positions [plural] on the issues. Abandon Israel, embrace Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Assad, slash defense spending, attack Pakistan, abrogate US treaty obligations, deny workers a secret ballot on unions, retreat from a US victory in Iraq, ignore the crisis in domestic oil supply, punish executives, deny citizens their second amendment rights, support infanticide, socialize medical care and raise our taxes while cutting our taxes (?).

As for the charge of racism. I think there is a racist component to this campaign, but the racist is Obama. Why should we be surprised. Democrats instituted slavery, segregation and welfare, the three most corrosive racial programs in our history. Republicans ended them all.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Third, can Obama produce the leadership necessary to be Commander in Chief during a war? Never mind his association with unrepentant members of the Weather Underground - an admittedly pro-North Vietnam domestic terrorist organization. Forget about his unwarranted and uninformed criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and about his drug use. Obama is anti-American. He wants America to surrender its sovereignty, culture and future. The military know what is coming if President Obama sits atop the chain of command. How can he lead in a war when he would be ineligible for a commission?
Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

Is the point of this thread that Obama is accurate in his assessment?

If not, it should have been, because that arguement is well supported here.
 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
If there is any doubt of an attempt to appeal to fear, here’s two E-mails I have recieved from McCain supporters...
You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this? And everybody chalked it up to, "Well, he’s tired."
Barack Obama says he’s gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it’s been such a long campaign, he’s been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a printout from a website called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. "Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic statespresented a resolution to the United Nations commission on human rights called combating." And the title of the piece here is, "How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council," and there are 57 of them.
Obama said he’s going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?
DO ALL AMERICANS A FAVOR AND FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.....


and this one...
These events are actual events from history.

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by

Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

4. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by

Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by

Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by

Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by

Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by

Muslim male extremists between the of 17 and 40.

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against

Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by— you guessed it—

Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us,
airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people...
Absolutely No Profiling!

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s secur ity detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and
Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss,
but leave

Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40

alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

And Now:

For the award winning
Act of Stupidity

Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position
on the face of the Planet —
The Presidency of the United states of America

A Muslim
Male
Extremist
Between
the ages
of 17 and 40.

Have the American People completely lost their Minds,
or just their Power of Reason ???

I’m sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the’unknown’ candidate.

Let’s send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -
if they have any such sense.

 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Yeah, but the REASON we fear him as President isn’t the reason he’s trying to suggest...

He’s suggesting it’s because of his race...

We’re telling you it’s because he’ll make a horrible President...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Sounds like you are focusing on race, while he just mentioned it.

The sad thing is that truth is that he could have said this, and it would probably have been more accurate than the statement he made....

"They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s a Muslim Extremist?"

I have had no less than 10 people, both Republican and Democrat (but mostly (8 of 10) Republican) ask me if it wasn’t a problem that he is/was a Muslim.

I confronted one conservative that sent out messages like the ones above, and I asked if he was really so uninformed that he did not know that these things were simply factually false. He indicated that he knew they were false, but if helped get McCain elected, the ends justifies the means.

That really could be the title of the campaign below the surface in this cycle, "the ends justifies the means".

You may know why you fear Obama, and it may well be a honest and rational concern. But folks sending out these e-mails are not attempting to raise honest and rational fears, they are trying to outright, and literally, demonize Obama.

I’d laugh it off as the work of one-off nutbags, except that we have all seen this work before.

Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference in the outcomes of an Obama Presidency vs a McCain Presidency. Obama would be more conservative than the primary race would indicate, and McCain, once he got the job, would revert to the liberal, centrist, and occasionally conservative positions he has held and espoused all along (before the republican primaries). I’d have voted for the John McCain of 2000, and I expect that’s the John McCain we’ll get. The only reason I won’t vote for him this year, is that he has traded any chance of getting my vote by pandering to the right side of the base, probably a good trade, but I won’t reward the hypocrisy with my vote.


 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Let me get this straight:

You think McCain going after conservative Republicans in an effort to secure his party’s nomination is pandering, and thus a bad thing. But you state that Obama would be more conservative than the primary race, which indicates that he was pursuing the liberal Democrats to secure his party’s nomination. Is that not pandering? Why is McCain’s pandering a bad thing while Obama’s is okay?
That really could be the title of the campaign below the surface in this cycle, "the ends justifies the means".
Politics has been a blood sport for ages now. I can make a list of dirty tricks by both parties as long as my arm. All of them boil down to "the end justifies the means". That you think this is something new this particular election cycle is amazing.
But folks sending out these e-mails are not attempting to raise honest and rational fears, they are trying to outright, and literally, demonize Obama.
Cry me a river. I’ve seen plenty of Republicans demonized by Democrats. Go all the way back to Goldwater in 1964, and every Republican since. I’m not justifying it, just saying your sudden sensitivity to this is either deliberately ignorant or laughably naive.


I’m not afraid of Obama: I think he’ll make a horrible President. He doesn’t seem to have any principles that he is unwilling to cast aside for political expediency. He has had a short and undistinguished career as a legislator. He hasn’t made any bipartisan efforts of any kind, but he wants us all to believe he’s going to bring change and a new kind of politics. His private life holds uncomfortably close associations with criminals (Rezko) and terrorists (Ayers). And he doesn’t even have the guts to appear in a debate sponsored by FOX News.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
I see a "Mythbuster", has entered the argument. Interesting. A McQ entry that shows Obama playing the race card and all "Mythbuster" has got for it is some e-mail traffic from unnamed sources. And the claim is that they came from McCain supporters. But no links are provided. Curious.

I wonder if "Mythbuster" is really Obama’s fact checking site? Could "Mythbuster" really originate from the folks at:
http://gawker.com/tag/barack-obama/?i=396014&t=obamas-mythbuster-site
If so, why not come right out and say so? If not, then why hide behind an alias?

"Mythbuster" - Come out, Come Out, whoever you are.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I had a friend who tried to insinuate the racist angle just like mythbuster is doing. Its very, very annoying.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"They’re going to try to make you afraid."

So what’s new? Making people afraid of the other party is a time honored tactic. Both sides do it.

"That really could be the title of the campaign below the surface in this cycle, "the ends justifies the means"."

Again, what’s new?


"I’d laugh it off as the work of one-off nutbags, except that we have all seen this work before."


And since you have seen it before, you know that there are some on all sides who do it. They may not be ’one-off’, but they are not a majority, either.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
James Marsden.
Look closer at the Newsweek poll you cited that gives Obama a 15 pt lead over McCain. 39% of those polled were registered Democrats; 24% registered Republicans (the rest were independents). There’s your 15 pts.

Mythbuster
Republicans don’t have to bring up Obama’s race. We leave that to the Democrats...remember the Democrat primary?
 
Written By: Mr Kennedy
URL: http://
I had a friend who tried to insinuate the racist angle just like mythbuster is doing. Its very, very annoying.
It’s going to be a long walk to November if they’re beating that horse dead already.

Part of the problem is that for people like mythbuster and the left, its about race for them. Its why they are so eager to put Obama in office.

So when someone opposes Obama, it must be about race for them too.

Basically, they never cared about his qualifications (or lack there of) or his positions, so why should they believe that you do.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
They’re gonna make us afraid. Because there’s nothing inherently frightening about Obama’s politics. Yeesh.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
You think McCain going after conservative Republicans in an effort to secure his party’s nomination is pandering, and thus a bad thing. But you state that Obama would be more conservative than the primary race, which indicates that he was pursuing the liberal Democrats to secure his party’s nomination. Is that not pandering? Why is McCain’s pandering a bad thing while Obama’s is okay?
Obama has tempered his liberalism, McCain reversed himself on a dozen positions. It’s a matter of degrees to be sure, but McCain is a lot closer to 180 in his pandering.
Politics has been a blood sport for ages now. I can make a list of dirty tricks by both parties as long as my arm. All of them boil down to "the end justifies the means". That you think this is something new this particular election cycle is amazing.
Not new in general, but in the outlandishness and sheer quantity. It could be owing to the greater net presence of the general population, but it’s out there and it is having an effect. Have you seen the polls about what people believe about Obama? Can you cite anything remotely similar with regard to McCain?
Cry me a river. I’ve seen plenty of Republicans demonized by Democrats. Go all the way back to Goldwater in 1964, and every Republican since. I’m not justifying it, just saying your sudden sensitivity to this is either deliberately ignorant or laughably naive.
I understand, but did we have people going around saying Goldwater was a Communist plant? I don’t think so.
And the claim is that they came from McCain supporters. But no links are provided. Curious.
A valid point, but I am not going to publish the e-mail addresses and names of my acquaintances.

I googled some of the phrases from that e-mail, and it turns out that the source of this e-mail was comments made on air by Rush Limbaugh, take a look for yourself...

Link

Here’s a link to the second e-mail posted proudly by a Town Hall blogger...

Link


And again on a site called noobama.com...

target="new">Link
I wonder if "Mythbuster" is really Obama’s fact checking site? Could "Mythbuster" really originate from the folks at:
http://gawker.com/tag/barack-obama/?i=396014&t=obamas-mythbuster-site
If so, why not come right out and say so? If not, then why hide behind an alias?
Alias, you mean as opposed to real names like ronniegipper, jpm100, timeactual, or shark?

I don’t want some nutbag showing up in my house, bullets are expensive these days.

But hey, if they want to pay me to defend Obama on a site where not one of the regulars would change his or her mind about Obama if they had 100% factual accuracy, God Bless ’em.
Part of the problem is that for people like mythbuster and the left, its about race for them. Its why they are so eager to put Obama in office.

So when someone opposes Obama, it must be about race for them too.
Where, tell me, did I ever say that race was the issue. Rather than focusing EXCLUSIVELY on the fact that Obama said, "And did I mention he’s black", I focused on the main point of his message, "We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid."


I was the one who said that Obama would have been more accurate if he said, "And did I mention he’s a Muslim".

I have only heard one person say that they didn’t like Obama because he was black, but between comments in live conversations, and e-mails, I have heard and read hundreds of direct assertions that Obama is or was a Muslim.

11% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim as a result of this e-mail campaign to make people believe he is a Muslim.

If you don’t see or understand the difference between that and people sending e-mails misrepresenting McCain’s 100 years in Iraq comment, then I suspect you may be able to look into your sent mail box and find these e-mails.
They’re gonna make us afraid. Because there’s nothing inherently frightening about Obama’s politics. Yeesh.
To you there may be, but these e-mails are not directed at you, they are directed at any moron that buys them. (yes, I am giving you credit for not being a moron)

Here’s the real challenge. If you value integrity, then when you see one of these e-mails, reply to all, and correct the factual inaccuracies, and make a policy argument, or an experience argument.

I would love to see an e-mail like that.






 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
(yes, I am giving you credit for not being a moron)
Well, that’s awful white of you. ;-)
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
Well, that’s awful white of you. ;-)
Don’t make me reconsider your non-moron status. ;-)
 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
"If you value integrity, then when you see one of these e-mails, reply to all, and correct the factual inaccuracies, and make a policy argument, or an experience argument."

I have not received any of these e-mails. Maybe they’re only being sent to folks on the Democrats’ mailing lists...maybe Hilary hasn’t told the spambots to stop sending them out.

"11% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim as a result of this e-mail campaign to make people believe he is a Muslim."

Probably not all 11% believe that because of the email campaign, but because his name is "Muslim" sounding. Or like my Dem friend who thought Lieberman would have been a bad candidate because he is a Jew and the Middle Easterners don’t like Jews. (This dude is in law school BTW, not some idiot.) I can’t be responsible for all of these people.

I also would like you to consider that 11% of Americans probably hold all manner of incorrect views on a variety of subjects, for example, I’d love to see a poll that asks which party opposed civil rights in the 60’s....I would guess 20%+ would answer "The Republicans" due to MSM brainwashing. John Kerry said Vietnam was "Nixon’s War" - completely risible. Wake me up when you shut down those myths that are convenient to your side.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I understand, but did we have people going around saying Goldwater was a Communist plant?
No, but we had Democrat tv ads intimating Goldwater was going to cause a nuclear war. Which do you think is worse: being a Communist plant or destroying the world?
Obama has tempered his liberalism, McCain reversed himself on a dozen positions.
I see: when a candidate you like does it, it’s called tempering his position. When a candidate you don’t like does it, it’s called reversing his position. Tell us how Obama’s varying stands on NAFTA isn’t a reversal (and that’s just one of many).
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
If you don’t see or understand the difference between that and people sending e-mails misrepresenting McCain’s 100 years in Iraq comment,
The difference is what you saw exists entirely in emails. McCain hasn’t said anything about it, unlike Obama going on a news show and misrepresenting McCain’s 100 years comment. There’s been no 527 organization making commercials about it, unlike MoveOn.org’s commercial that McQ blogged about a few days ago.

For someone who argues difference of degree, you place a lot more emphasis on email spam than you do on mainstream press coverage.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
One last one:
11% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim as a result of this e-mail campaign to make people believe he is a Muslim.
Prove it. You might be able to prove that 11% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, but it’s absolutely dishonest of you to claim it is a result of the email.
You have no way of knowing just when these people formed their opinion.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
"If there is any doubt of an attempt to appeal to fear, here’s two E-mails I have recieved from McCain supporters..."

I hope you forwarded it as it instructed, because everybody knows that bad things happen when you break the chain.

Imagine, nutcases on the right. I am shocked! Who would have suspected? As opposed to the left where there are no nutcases and everyone is rational and unbiased.

Troll.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Troll


Sorry, I thought debate was the purpose of the comments section.

Espousing a different point of view is trolling here... interesting.

My bad, I guess it is just a forum for high fives and agreement.

By the way, the worst thing ever done to McCain, was done to him by his side.
 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Worse than being tortured by the North Vietnamese? Or was that a myth?

Your comments are getting the respect they deserve.

 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
How about a little fun...
Revealing Obama Email!
Wow! I got this email today and learned so much about Barack Obama, who knew!

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American’s duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It’s upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There’s only one artist on Barack Obama’s iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama’s new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.
 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Worse than being tortured by the North Vietnamese? Or was that a myth?
I can’t believe I have to spell this out, but the comment was in the context of the discussion of political campaign attacks, so McCain’s POW torture experience would not likely be considered as such.

 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
A valid point, but I am not going to publish the e-mail addresses and names of my acquaintances.
Then your claim that those e-mails came from McCain supporters cannot be validated. I’m not surprised. Next.
I googled some of the phrases from that e-mail, and it turns out that the source of this e-mail was comments made on air by Rush Limbaugh, take a look for yourself...
Did you also note that the rumor about Michelle Obama’s "Whitey" comments was nationally broadcast on Fox news by Bob Beckel - Democratic strategist and Obama supporter. And this announcement predated Rush’s broadcast. Next.
I don’t want some nutbag showing up in my house, bullets are expensive these days.
That’s funny - I don’t have any such excuses, I use Federal ammunition. I won’t even mention the word COWARD or anything like that.

OKAY, Mythbuster. Bust this myth for me. I have heard that Barack Obama is an empty suit, a blank sheet of paper with no experience and nothing but words to convince the American people he is the best choice for President. Disprove that by one simple thing - produce for me a list of his accomplishments. He has been in public service for over 20 years, or so he says. If that is true, then he should have a long list of accomplishments to show for all of that good work he has been doing.

I’ll wait. . .



 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
What terms are blacklisted?
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
I’ll wait. . .
Do I hear crickets chirping in the distance?

Still waiting . . .
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Mythbuster must be the "gun" that Obama is bringing to McQ’s knife fight.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
That’s funny - I don’t have any such excuses, I use Federal ammunition. I won’t even mention the word COWARD or anything like that.
Is this some kind of personal challenge?

And I’M the troll???
If that is true, then he should have a long list of accomplishments to show for all of that good work he has been doing.
Surely you can Google "Obama accomplishments", but in case you are having difficulty with this, I’ll help you out...

Here’s a WAPO column...

Here’s this...

His bold legislative work on the Illinois Death Penalty, and how he made a difference between life and death

His sponsorship of a bill that brought health insurance to 150,000, including 70,000 uninsured Children, again, during his time serving in the Illinois Statehouse:

Link
Link


His work on both the Immigration bill during his time in the US senate and his sponsorship of Ethics legislation (something he did both while in the State House, and in the Senate) that called for some of the most impactful reform regarding lobbyists since Watergate (as he likes to term it):
Link
Link

Here’s a chart of many of his accomplishments during his 8 years in the Illinois state house -


and his sponsored and co sponsored Bills in the U.S. Senate.......which include worthwhile bills dealing with a wide range of issues, from Election reform bills to the Cooperative Proliferation Detection reduction Act (w/t Sen. Lugar) to Internet database transparency Act.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271 /
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/Novembe...
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c /

http://thomas.loc.gov / (Select Obama’s name from the Senator drop down)

This does not lists all of his accomplishments, nor does it deals with his accomplishments prior to entering elected office.

It’s funny, I hear Obama detractors simultaneously claim that he is naive and idealistic, and that he is cold and calculating. Kind of hard to be both.

So what has John McCain done to make you proud?

McCain Feingold?
Voting against Bush tax cuts?
Opposing abortion ban?
Pro-illegal Immigrant position?
Calling the religious right "Agents of Intolerance"?
supporting gay marriage?
Opposing torture?
Opposition to promoting the confederate flag?

But hey, if you don’t like his stance on those positions, it’s okay, his claimed position in those areas are the exact opposite now.

Would John McCain of 2000, the one who toyed with the idea of running on the ticket with John Kerry in 2004, even vote for the McCain of 2008?

I’m not terribly concerned about this election though, since I think the real John McCain is the John McCain of 2000, and since he would be an admitted one term President, he will go back to his true positions once he has gotten the vote of the right. Not so good for the people who will vote him because of the positions he espouses, but I think you get the point that no matter who we elect, we will not be electing a Republican.







 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
I’m not terribly concerned about this election though, since I think the real John McCain is the John McCain of 2000, and since he would be an admitted one term President, he will go back to his true positions once he has gotten the vote of the right. Not so good for the people who will vote him because of the positions he espouses, but I think you get the point that no matter who we elect, we will not be electing a Republican.
Look, John McCain is not my first pick for Pres. Neither was Bush, either time. What we have here is a lesser-of-two-evils-type situation, a situation I have really grown tired of in Presidential politics.

Does McCain suck? Is he (finally) pandering to the right, and changing his mind about such things as drilling on the OCS? Yes. If you read back through QANDO you’ll see McCain duly thumped for his inadequacies. Listen to any of the mainstream talkers on the Right and you’ll hear the same. No one is overjoyed to have McCain.

The point here is that Obama is positioning legitimate debate about his fitness for the presidency alongside racism, so that “legitimate complaint = racism.” Obama himself is injecting race into this, hoping it will effectively neutralize any legitimate criticism. (And may I say, it’s nice to see he is capable of some ounce of subtlety, particularly after unveiling his presidential seal the other day.)

What this move says to me is that Obama is worried that when it comes to experience and the ability to lead, he doesn’t stack up to McCain. And in spite of McCain’s faults, I think that’s just about right.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
At worst, McCain’s will be a stop-gap presidency.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
I asked for a simple product:
produce for me a list of his accomplishments
And you give me what? A Washington Post article that talks a lot about his wealth of legislative accomplishments and then can only give two so-so examples. That’s the best he can do after how many years? And:
His sponsorship of a bill that brought health insurance to 150,000, including 70,000 uninsured Children, again, during his time serving in the Illinois Statehouse
Sponsorship - along with 32 other legislators - Oh and by the way his name was the last to be added to the bill, 72 hours before passage. That’s Leadership!

And then you give us his work regarding the Illinois Death Penalty. And his accomplishment there? And to back it up you give us a link that doesn’t work. Typical - didn’t think anyone would check up on you? You also do not mention the 132 times he voted "Present" during his tenure in the Illinois Legislature. That is real leadership!
and his sponsored and co sponsored Bills in the U.S. Senate
And these bills accomplished what? Did they pass? Were they signed into law? Have you ever filled out a resume? Do you even know what an accomplishement is?

And then you throw some McCain accomplishments (?) into the discussion. Not asked for and not needed. I asked you to justify Obama’s claim he is best suited for the job. Based upon what you gave me, you failed.

And finally:
Is this some kind of personal challenge?
You’re the one hiding behind an alias.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Obama "worked" on no successful legislation for the first SIX years he was in the IL State Senate. When the democrats took control, Emil Jones, Senate President, told a local radio talk show host, "I’m gonna make me a US Senator.... Barack Obama." All those "accomplishments" you cited were Jones pushing Obama out front despite his never having worked on the actual legislation.

In the uS Senate he has been towing the Liberal party line until his triangulation on the FISA Bill.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Here are some items from Protein Wisdom about the numerous silicon implants in Obama’s resume:
Moreover, Hazel Johnson, who has lived at Altgeld Gardens since 1962 – and was an organizer long before Obama appeared on the scene – claims Obama has exaggerated his role in getting asbestos removed from the projects. Otherwise, Obama did not get much done — and even had difficulty explaining what a “community organizer” did.

Though Obama served in the Illinois Senate for seven years, he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year, when Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

In the [U.S.] Senate, Obama points mostly to his role in the 2007 overhaul of Congressional lobbying and ethics rules — a role he has repeatedly overstated. Indeed, Obama was called out publicly by his colleagues for trying to take undeserved credit on the recent immigration reform and housing bills.

Obama also points to the Lugar-Obama nuclear non-proliferation bill — a bill so non-controversial that it was passed into law by unanimous consent. Indeed, when not trying to take credit for the work of others, Obama’s Senate record is almost entirely minor legislation, usually passed by unanimous consent or voice vote.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
At worst, McCain’s will be a stop-gap presidency.
Eh. It could be worse than that.

But for the time being McCain is the "No" vote on Obama.

In this election McCain is the Clapper and Obama is the bathroom light.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
In this election McCain is the Clapper and Obama is the bathroom light.
Brilliant!
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
arch:
Obama "worked" on no successful legislation for the first SIX years he was in the IL State Senate.
Obama is Howard Dean after he fell asleep in the tanning booth.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
With respect to "race" what exactly is Obama? His mother was a PhD from Kansas, his father, a PhD from Kenya. He attended Punahoe - an expensive Hawaiian prep school - then went to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, funded by his white grandparents. Obama’s heritage and life of privilege is hardly typical of descendants of former slaves.

As for his being naive and calculating, with respect to political dirty tricks, Obama is a product of the Daley machine, and is very proficient at getting his opponents discredited or disqualified. The areas where his inexperience shows is dealing with foreign affairs, thinking on his feet and working across the aisle, he falls flat. Wants to talk to dictators without preconditions (but not our allies,) bomb Pakistan, pull out to avoid a victory in Iraq regardless of the outcome.

He reads a great speech, but he’s not ready to be a peacetime President, much less a wartime Commander in Chief.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
And then you throw some McCain accomplishments (?) into the discussion.
Isn’t this election contest a comparison?
Not asked for and not needed.


I’ll bet.
I asked you to justify Obama’s claim he is best suited for the job.


Really, where did you ask that?

This is what you asked for...

"OKAY, Mythbuster. Bust this myth for me. I have heard that Barack Obama is an empty suit, a blank sheet of paper with no experience and nothing but words to convince the American people he is the best choice for President. Disprove that by one simple thing - produce for me a list of his accomplishments. He has been in public service for over 20 years, or so he says. If that is true, then he should have a long list of accomplishments to show for all of that good work he has been doing."

Your opinion of his accomplishments is irrelevant, he has accomplishments. I did not expect them to impress you, since most of what he has done would be opposed by you on ideological principal.
Based upon what you gave me, you failed.
I failed to convince you that Obama is qualified to be President, what a shock!

Obama, holding his present policy positions, could have been the governor of California, the CEO of IBM, and and decorated war hero, and the only thing that would change would be how you opposed him, not whether you opposed him. And if he were none of the above, but instead was a failed oilman, had won two elections in his life as governor of a state with a weak governor system, but had the right policy positions, you would still vote for the latter over the former on policy.

Obama or McCain could be great, or awful as President, it is unknowable. Some of our greatest Presidents had little experience or accomplishments to speak of, and some of our worst had stellar resumes. Our Presidents with the most government experience were LBJ and Gerald Ford. Some of least experienced were JFK and Lincoln. A successful General, Ike built one of the most efficient administrations in history, with no Washington experience at all. A successful General, US Grant, built one of the most corrupt.

DAVID VON DREHLE of Time magazine explained it well..
When Americans pass over the best-credentialed candidates because their heart or their gut leads them elsewhere, they are only reflecting a visceral understanding that the presidency involves tests unlike all others. They are, perhaps, seeking the ineffable quality the writer Katherine Anne Porter had in mind when she defined experience as "the truth that finally overtakes you." An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé.
But to your point, I cannot prove the case that Obama is qualified to be President. Nor can you prove that McCain is qualified to be President. No moreso than James Buchanan, who had enormous experience, and dithered as the country marched toward civil war. Unfortunately, that job itself truly is the only test of whether one can do it, and the only real qualification, is one’s ability to convince voters that they can do it well.

You don’t think I am trying to convince you that you should vote for Obama, do you? I am just offering some diversity of opinion here.

50 comments on this post, less than 10 on most others. Do you prefer mutual admiration, if so, say the word, and I’ll leave you to your high fives (or terrorist fist bumps, if you prefer).
As for his being naive and calculating, with respect to political dirty tricks, Obama is a product of the Daley machine, and is very proficient at getting his opponents discredited or disqualified. The areas where his inexperience shows is dealing with foreign affairs, thinking on his feet and working across the aisle, he falls flat. Wants to talk to dictators without preconditions (but not our allies,) bomb Pakistan, pull out to avoid a victory in Iraq regardless of the outcome.
This is just talking points, and an inaccurate portrayal of his positions.

He did a dozen debates, and obviously did well enough to win the nomination, all thinking on his feet. And we are comparing him to McCain right, who with his vast experience, and great understanding of world affairs and military capability, used these powers to make this observation...
"We’re going to prevail and we will win and it’ll be one of the best things that’s happened to America and the world in a long time ’cause it’ll reverberate throughout the Middle East." —on the Iraq war, "Meet the Press" interview, March 3, 2003
So McCain understands all this stuff better, and Obama still made the more accurate call... wow, and imagine what he could do with more experience?


Examples of working across the aisle include his nuclear proliferation work with Luger, and his ethics work with Tom Coburn, not to mention his success in Illinois.

Obama will talk to hostile leaders if he believes it will advance US interests, and having no preconditions does not mean having no preparation.

As to the suggestion that Obama will not talk to our allies, that is just a nonsensical statement.

That Obama will bomb Pakistan is a gross mischaracterization of what he said. He said that if the US has actionable intelligence of a threat in Pakistan and the Pakistani will no act, we reserve that right. Perhaps you are unaware that the Obama Administration is not in office and we bombed Pakistan last week.

On Iraq, you characterize it as avoiding victory, well victory was described before going in as disarming Saddam and regime change. Those have long been accomplished. It’s time for Iraq to stand up. The US cannot, by presence of force, stabilize Iraq, or the Middle East, in fact, our presence is a destabilizing factor. However to say that he disregards the outcome is false.
"I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I’ve given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there."
"According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out."



 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Sounds like you have convinced yourself, there Mythbuster. Good for you. You have not convinced me. You have failed to convince me that Obama has nothing but an empty sheet of paper for a resume - much as you might like to believe otherwise. You keep talking about his talking but I don’t see his accomplishments - which is what I asked for - and you have not provided squat to show for his 20+ years of public service. If that was all I had to show for my last 20 years, I might be able to justify a County Commissioner or some such position. But not US Senator, much less president of the US. If what he has to offer is what you want, then maybe you will get just what you deserve. Meanwhile you just go on believing. It looks like that’s what you are good for.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
In other words, Mythbuster, I have been asking the same question for over 6 months and you failed. You at least tried - not very well, but you tried. Not to worry though. I will keep asking the question. I already know the answer. He doesn’t have any accomplishments. But it is fun watching sheep scurry this way and that trying to find an answer that can’t be found.

You got a problem with that - buy stock in Federal.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Well look at this bullshirt as an example of ’racism’.

Here’s the article -
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91FUB6G0&show_article=1

And here’s an excerpt that claims the association of Obama with Wright WAS playing on race....
Racially charged criticism of Obama already has surfaced in several states.

Shortly before North Carolina’s May 6 primary, the state Republican Party aired a TV ad linking Democratic candidates to Obama, who was described as "too extreme" because of his ties to the retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Obama eventually ended his relationship with Wright, his longtime pastor who had been criticized for sermons in which he cursed America and accused the government of conspiring against blacks. The state party ignored McCain’s repeated calls to kill the ad.
? Say What?
Was he or was he not associated with Reverend Wright for 20 years? Which part of that has anything to do with race, other than the obvious? And if Wright’s view is NOT too extreme why did Obama finally and fully disassociate himself with it? And didn’t he do THAT after North Carolina’s primary had wrapped up or do I not recall correctly?

Again, other than the obvious which IS their race (I guess Obama hasn’t got any ’white’ blood in him? huh?) and other than the fact that Wright is very much about a black version of racism (oh, forgot, can’t be racists...uh huh) how does someone pointing out the long association between these two men become RACISM?


The other issues...he’s a Muslim, the ’White’ house (what the HELL is that shat about. It’s called the White House because it was painted white...it was gray stone....after the British BURNED in 1814 and Teddy Roosevelt was the first to make it an official name, not because ’white folks’ live in it, good Christ on a crutch) appear to me to be valid, they’re bull, and the White House one I find to be a particularly bad, and racist, joke.

But the other example (1/3 of the examples presented kids!) is what we’re talking about. Not all criticism is RACIST, and yet here’s a media outlet painting a valid non-racist association along with the crap incidents as if they are ALL the same.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
but I don’t see his accomplishments


Your stated opinion is that his accomplishments are not enough, an opinion which you are entitled to, which I happen to disagree with.

Keep on pretending it is McCain’s resume that make him the better choice in your view. We both know that’s just the how, not the why, of the your opposition to Obama.

All things being equal, I would agree that McCain’s resume is better, but if the respective parties voted on resumes, we would have a general election between Tom Ridge and Bill Richardson (or Dicj Cheney and Al Gore for that matter). We don’t have that because we DON’T vote on resumes, but you want to pretend that it matters now?


Interesting that you say that he does not qualify as a US Senator, since he IS a US Senator, and by all accounts, a successful one at that (you know, the whole party’s nominee for President and such).

Perhaps we’ll revisit this in a year, and you can tell me that President Obama is not qualified to be President. I won’t blame you, since we have a President who has ostensibly been doing the job for over 7 years, and I would argue he is not qualified.
He doesn’t have any accomplishments
Zero, eh?

How cool will that be, that on November 2nd, his one and only accomplishment in his entire life will be to be elected President of the United States.

I love that you think writing best selling books is not an accomplishment, and that being elected to the Senate is not an accomplishment, and sponsoring hundreds of pieces of legislation are not accomplishments, and organizing a campaign to win the Democratic nomination is not an accomplishment, and by the way, doing all of these while being a blank slate, empty suit, who has never accomplished anything. That seems to be quite an accomplishment. Bill Richardson couldn’t do it with a huge resume of accomplishments.

Obama is not an inside the beltway guy, to be sure, so he does not have the beltway cred that perpetual senators like McCain might have, but don’t you think, that this exactly why Americans are favoring Obama (slightly) at the moment?









 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Of the three items mentioned, I agree with you on the Reverend Wright issue, though it is racially charged, it’s not racially charged because of the people who use it against Obama, but rather because of the content of Wright’s words. Still, the racial element being exploited, though of Wright’s own doing, can still be exploiting racial issues. I am just not one to assert what people are thinking when they make these arguments, so I have to assume the intentions were not racist.

On the other two, they are purely racist.

Even the Republican Party agrees that sellig buttons an official GOP event that say "If Obama is president ... will we still call it The White House?", is crude racism and should not be tolerated. Texas GOP spokesman Hans Klingler said, "we will neither tolerate nor profit from bigotry."

The Muslim commercial, which used images of Obama taken when he was visiting Africa, and being a polite visitor donning indigenous garb, and then quoting Obama of context, gave the clear inference that Obama is a practicing Muslim, in an attmept to capitalize on prejudices against Muslims.

So no, not all criticism is racist, but two of the three examples you posted are.



 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
I agree...and two of the three were condemned.

The Muslim thing (I want to know which it is, he’s a black Christian radical? or he’s a Muslim? And if the later did Reverend Wright know that?) really cheeses me too, because it shows a fundamental ignorance of the American system of government.

IF the President tried to make us all CATHOLICS (see John F. Kennedy) it would be just as bad and he’d get just as impeached. I’m preaching to the choir I know, but the President of the US doesn’t HAVE that kind of power.

My next question would be so what if he IS a Muslim as long as he continues to do the job of defending the US Constitution (Religious Freedom? Huh?) that every other President supposedly has done.
I realize you can’t argue it that way because then the numbwits who are worried about him making us all pray 5 times a day will say "Ah HA! He IS a Muslim!", rather than, "Oh, yeah, you’re right, even the President can’t make us pray 5 times a day towards Mecca".

People ARE going to play the race card, I expect that, but he can’t nip every criticism in the bud by claiming it’s race related.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How cool will that be, that on November 2nd, his one and only accomplishment in his entire life will be to be elected President of the United States.
Like I said:
If what he has to offer is what you want, then maybe you will get just what you deserve.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
If what he has to offer is what you want, then maybe you will get just what you deserve.
That’s the way it seems to work out, but every once in a while, we get something special.





 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
every once in a while, we get something special.
There’s nothing even remotely special out there this time, pal.

Unless Obama is some sort of special catastrophe that would be visited upon the United States.

If you can’t see through him, let the lads at this blog do it for you.

Pay attention.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
There’s nothing even remotely special out there this time, pal.
Yeah, that’s what some folks said about Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, and Kennedy.

And those folks are now almost universally regarded as great leaders.

We are taking a chance when we pull that lever, no matter for whom we pull it. You may think I am being fooled, but if you don’t recognize this reality, then I know you are fooling yourself.

People that look upon these decisions as if they are objective, black and white decisions that can be quantified with certitude (Obama will definitely be bad, McCain would definitely be better), are the least useful sources to look to.

I prefer Obama over McCain, but I think either of them could turn out to be very good, or very bad. For every great President elected, their are those that think they will be horrible, and for every horrible President elected, their are those that think they will be great.

Only time, not you or your blog lads, will tell.







 
Written By: mythbuster
URL: http://
Yeah, that’s what some folks said about Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, and Kennedy
So, "mythbuster" is really a mythbuyer.

Did he have the 10% he needed to put down on buying his future myth contract on Obama?

Or did the government lend it to him?
I prefer Obama over McCain,
That’s a preference for sh*t over Shinola, pal.

Getting all gassed up about Obama is like the great McGovern surge of ’72. McGovern was the heir to Henry Wallace, the pro-Soviet former FDR VP who ran for president as a "Progressive" in ’48. Obama is worse than McGovern and Wallace, particularly since he emerges as an academic black man vs. a black man with a genuine black experience and brings with him the abstract theoretical aspects of identity politics without the empirical reality of what he is trying to sell himself as.

That is demonstrated by his 20-year membership in a racist, black-supremacist church, which he believed was his road to "authenticity." That the Democratic Party has waved that off and bought into his nonsense is indicative of how askew that bunch of nitwits has become.

This is a guy who doesn’t have a clue as to who or what he is, but is driven by an evanescent and fungible ideology that will exact disaster — all the bloviation about Hope and Change notwithstanding.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Yeah, that’s what some folks said about Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, and Kennedy.
Excuse me? Maybe try a history book not written by Howard Zinn.

Lincoln was an exceptional orator. Yes, he had failed attempts at politics, but the man could speak. What’s more, he could speak without the benefit of speechwriters. And the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Abe Lincoln was a remarkable thinker and speaker. There was something very special about him.

FDR had a remarkable career before his presidency. I may not agree with his politics, but the man accomplished a lot as Governor of New York, and demonstrated the kind of leadership that won him four terms as president. Another good orator who presented actual ideas and not just platitudes.

Kennedy had exceptional written all over him. The first (and only?) Catholic to be elected despite much bigotry among the general electorate (actual bigotry, not the "pretend" bigotry that Obama is complaining about.) He wiped the floor with Richard Nixon in their debates, and is another idea man.

And Reagan? Don’t get me started.

Each one of these guys is a TITAN compared to Obama, regardless of their politics. They were idea men who possessed the charisma to accomplish great things in their time.

Obama just possesses charisma. He’s like William Hurt’s character in "Broadcast News", an empty suit who looks nice on camera and really knows how to read a teleprompter. His ideas for running the country could’ve been ripped from a high school junior’s civics essay. He simply lacks the experience and know-how to lead the United States of America.
People that look upon these decisions as if they are objective, black and white decisions that can be quantified with certitude (Obama will definitely be bad, McCain would definitely be better), are the least useful sources to look to.
Who the heck is looking at this in terms of black and white? In regards to Obama’s ability to serve as president, I see shades of grey. Extremely dark shades of grey. If elected, I don’t believe he would completely scuttle the country, but I’d rather not find out first hand just how bad things can get under his presidency. As a voter, I can look to his track record (or lack thereof) and listen to his "ideas" and make that call.

I believe that you’re confusing approaching a problem (presidential candidate, social issue, etc.) with some sense of basic principles for "quantifying with certitude." The great thing about libertarian philosophy is that you start out with personal freedom as a yardstick, and see how things (presidential candidates, social issues, etc.) measure up.

(And BTW — your line "McCain would definitely be better" is not a black and white position.)
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
Each one of these guys is a TITAN compared to Obama, regardless of their politics. They were idea men who possessed the charisma to accomplish great things in their time.
Yes, and the same cannot be said of Obama today, I understand this, and agree.

But the same could not be said about ANY of them before they became President.

We’ll see.

Statistically, I am likely to be wrong, since only one in ten Presidents have been great, but let’s see what the general election campaign shows us. By us, I don’t mean you folks that wouldn’t vote for a D if their other choice was a actual jackass, but us as in the nation.

We usually get what we deserve, but sometimes we get something special, and few saw that in any of these greats before they became what we know them as today.

 
Written By: mythbuster
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