Jon complains that liberals see the hint of racial attacks in conservative actions. The problem is that the right has a history of racially based campaigning for over 100 years up until now. They’ve given no indication they have any desire to stop or slow down the process. They, in fact, rely upon it to keep their base intact.
Using the logic Jon Henke is advocating here, we should believe that all the people in prison are innocent. Why? Because they say so, silly!
I think most of this “dogwhistle” stuff is a bunch of crap. Mainly because dogwhistles cannot be heard or seen. It’s often just been a hard to disprove, easy to repeat smear.
When Bush was talking about Dred Scott that was actual code that could be seen and discussed. That was code, not dogwhistle. This dogwhistle stuff is dreadful, and look, Matt Stoller has had to back away from it.
There is plenty plenty plenty to discuss about the campaigns and why McCain is wrong for President. I see no reason to get into dogwhistles.
I think Yglesias is full of shit too. Why are they going on McCain’s record? It’s the best thing he has going for him. They are pounding the facts. Yeah, maybe it does make the point that if you are nervous about either Democratic candidate that you have a McCain, but that in and of itself is neither racist nor sexist.
Yglesias is often full of shit, but rarely in such a dipshitted manner.
We do not need to win this way. Arguing in this manner is very risky because I think most Americans will see it for what it is. Nonsense and not reality based.
Joe Lieberman, is that you?
The best and only whistle (definitely not a dogwhistle.)
I certainly agree that there are racists on the Right. I’d even agree that racism has been utilized by politicians and campaigns from time to time. However, I will not agree that every instance you describe as racism was actually intended as such - there’s a lot of paranoia that drives the Left to see racism everywhere.
But that doesn’t address the post at all. And your analogy is absurdly inappropriate. In fact, mt post directly contradicts your analogy, since I said that there *is* real racism in America. But the fact that racism exists does not imply that it is always being used and stoked.
Racism is a very real problem, though it’s really a social problem now, rather than a legal problem. The Right, I think, doesn’t acknowledge and address the tragic legacy of racism and the ongoing effects of it as much as it should. But the Left uses racism as a partisan cudgel to score political points. That’s a great disservice.
You dismiss out of hand liberals seeing racism in Republican activities. You simply chalk it up to paranoia. Using Occam’s Razor, its clear that cons have an ingrained habit of supporting and stoking the fires of racism and are unapologetic about it. The simplest solution is that in all likelihood they’re doing it again.
Mainly because dogwhistles cannot be heard or seen.
http://www.xcergy.com/ebay/dogitwhistle.jpg
Jerry:
Have you been drinking this morning? McCain has such a horrible record. Why not run on it? Have you seen his comments about Iraq lately? The dude doesn’t have a frackin’ clue what’s going on over there. What’s the one notable thing McCain has done? McCain-Feingold? The TradMed fluffs him endlessly because he will always call them back. Hell, GWB pees on them, then tells them it is raining, and they still suck it up. I never knew so many people in the TradMed were into S&M. How does one operate with out the ability to feel shame? Remember how humiliated Russert was at the Libby trail? The sad thing is that most of the spectators probably felt more shame than Russert did for his own actions. Anyway, lets hear how you’d beat McCain.
Thanks Calvin,
I see what I did wrong to get called Lieberman. I didn’t mean record, I meant biography, which is what this tour is about.
Yeah, his record is shit. His biography is very presidential to many people. That’s what they’re pounding on and it’s asinine of Yglesias to claim it’s somehow racist for McCain to promote his biography.
Don’t ask me how I’d beat McCain — I’d listen to what Rachel Maddow has to say and do that.
I think our candidates are both weak and cowardly — they’ve both run very mild campaigns based on their own biographies with claims they can lead. Both have squandered their time in the Senate to propose real bills to solve issues and demonstrate their actual ability to lead.
Dodd was the only candidate who sort of understood what his position as a running Senator could do to propel his campaign.
If either Clinton or Obama had actually led in real ways in the Senate, we would not be stuck where we are now in the race. If both had actually led in real ways in the Senate, the country would probably not be stuck where it is.
Now hold on a second.
Yglesias wrote this (but I added the emphasis):
Do we all see what Matt’s getting at? He says the McCain strategy is not exploiting racism or sexism.
Then along comes Henke to say:
Um, no.
First, Jon, you’re not responding to “Democrats,” you’re responding to Matt Yglesias. Second, he’s not seeing “racism under every rock,” he’s seeing not-racism under this one.
If there’s a jerking knee here, Jon, it’s not Matt’s.
You dismiss out of hand liberals seeing racism in Republican activities. You simply chalk it up to paranoia.
Oliver, either you enjoy being deliberately obtuse or you really have poor reading comprehension skills. Where exactly does Jon “dismiss out of hand liberals seeing racism in Republican activities”? He pointed out two specific instances where two liberals attempted to accuse McCain of using racism and the accusations are absurd. One even backed off his accusation.
And attempting to apply Occam’s razor in this instance where specific allegations are being made is absurd.
Of course, using Occam’s razor, it’s clear that liberals and Democrats reach into their back pockets and whip out the racism card every chance they get (it’s an old favorite like “Tax cuts for the rich” and “It’s for the children!”), even when undeserved because they just don’t give a crap. The simplest solution is that they’re going to be doing it again. With the potential for a black candidate, watch out. The liberal bloggers will be shitting their pants with excitement of all the hidden and underhanded racism they’ll be able to sniff out.
it’s asinine of Yglesias to claim it’s somehow racist for McCain to promote his biography.
It would be asinine, if that was the argument Matt was making. Read it again:
It’s right there in black and white: Matt is saying McCain’s biography focus is not exploiting racism or sexism.
Sheesh!
No! No! No! No!
He pointed to a Matt Yglesias column that explicitly says McCain’s tactic does NOT exploit racism. And then he accuses Matt of saying the tactic IS racist.
But Matt says that McCain is doing this for sexist and racist reasons… Matt says that McCain wants to amp up older people’s sexist and racism, and that McCain’s is camouflaging an identity politics campaign by pushing his military record and biography.
Occam’s razor tells me that McCain is pushing his military record and biography because they are very strong, and there is no need to impute racism or sexism to that. And Matt offers no other evidence that his explanation of why McCain his hyping his biography is simpler, or explains more.
What I’ll say on behalf of this strategy is that it’s the best way I can think of to try to take advantage of older people’s potential discomfort with the idea of a woman or a black man in the White House that doesn’t involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way. McCain’s putting together an identity politics counter-narrative steeped in nostalgia; it didn’t work against a white southerner running on a very cautious agenda, but 2008 is going to see the Democrats nominating an unorthodox candidate running on a more liberal agenda.
Amp up their racism and sexism with a strategy that “doesn’t exploit racism or sexism”?
Who is accusing whom of dogwhistle politics here?
Matt correctly notes that the Democrats will nominate an “unorthodox” candidate this year. For those who didn’t pay attention in history class, the United States has never had a major party nominee at the top of the ticket who was female or black.
Matt says that McCain is building an “identity politics counter-narrative.” Can you puzzle out what Matt’s high-falutin’ term might mean, Jerry?
In short, Matt writes: The best way to run against Obama or Clinton without resorting to racism or sexism is to do exactly what John McCain is doing!
But to you, Jerry, and Jon Henke, this amounts to “Democrats” playing the racism card.
Remind me please. Which way is up?
Hey, I don’t agree with Jon Henke that Democrats are playing the racism card. I just don’t agree with Matt that McCain’s pointing to his biography means that McCain is playing the racism card.
I don’t believe in dogwhistles. It’s Matt that claims that McCain wants to amp up older folk’s sexism and racism, not me.
Just because Matt is an idiot doesn’t mean I think that either a) us Democrats are, b) Clinton OR Obama are.
I think that McCain pointing to his biography is every bit as logical and predictable as Obama pointing to his biography, and neither have ANYTHING to do with racism.
Quaker, all Matt is doing is saying that McCain is doing it in a way that isn’t expressly exploiting the issue. He’s just being more subtle. You know, with a wink and a nod, McCain talks about his past and his family history as a way of reminding people what it was like in the “good ole days” when blacks “knew their place.”
“When Bush was talking about Dred Scott that was actual code that could be seen and discussed. That was code, not dogwhistle.”
Jerry, you’re confusing yourself. “Code” and “dog whistle” are two different metaphors used by writers to describe the same tactic. Some writers like using “code” others prefer “dog whistle.” The difference between the two is purely stylistic with no practical distinction between what the metaphors describe.
If the ability to be “seen” and “discussed” is what distinguishes “code” from “dog whistles”, both Bush’s reference to Dred Scott and images of a white woman coming on to a black politician can both be “seen” and “discussed” as the racially charged references that they are.
Matt Y’s description of McCain’s biography tour is dead on. The predominant theme of Obama’s campaign has been change and to a lesser extent but still there, so has Clinton’s. Obama, however, claims to represent a fundamental change in the nation’s political culture while Clinton is basically talking about simply changing from Republican control, after eight years, to Democratic.
Both of their candidacies, however, represent objective historic change in that there has never been a woman or a black president before. McCain would never, ever come out and say that making a woman or a black man president is too radical a change. Not only because i don’t think he personally believes it, but it would also be political suicide.
McCain’s emphasis on his lineage, however, is more than a simple “get to know the candidate” strategy. It’s presented in a manner that underscores continuity and tradition. Obviously, McCain would sound like an idiot if he came out and said he was “opposed” to change. But by emphasizing his biographical roots, he wraps himself in a nostalgia for more “familiar” times. For voters who are worried about change on any level — be it political, racial, gendered etc — McCain is their (white) man. McCain can tap anxieties about change without ever having to talk about, directly or indirectly, race or gender.
I don’t think any of this is paranoid conspiracy stuff. It’s Branding and Marketing 101. If your opponents are pushing change, you define yourself as the steadfast, traditional option. Afterall, McCain knows he can’t win running as a candidate of change. Who the fuck would believe him? Tradition, continuity and nostalgia are his strenghts, and they are his strengths, in part, because a lot of people fear change — especially when race and gender are involved.
I see. You’re saying that Matt is making a coded accusation that McCain is speaking in racist, sexist code. But McCain is actually speaking plainly, so it’s Matt who is showing his bigotry.
Your powers of divination are a marvel to behold.
Jerry wrote:
Oddly, this is a pretty good paraphrase of what Yglesias wrote.
You’re saying that Matt is making a coded accusation that McCain is speaking in racist, sexist code.
Actually, Matt is making it pretty clear.
Fafaroo got it:
“For voters who are worried about change on any level — be it political, racial, gendered etc — McCain is their (white) man. McCain can tap anxieties about change without ever having to talk about, directly or indirectly, race or gender.”
Maybe Mat is making it pretty clear, but you’re not, Jay. Let’s go to the tape once more:
You’re saying when Matt writes that McCain’s strategy does NOT exploit racism or sexism, he is actually accusing McCain of exploiting racism and sexism.
Or at least that’s the best I can make of it. So I’ll close by saying, “Have a crappy day, Jay!” Here in backwards world that really means “Have a great day!”
“Jerry, you’re confusing yourself. “Code” and “dog whistle” are two different metaphors used by writers to describe the same tactic.”
code and dogwhistle are related but very different.
When Bush used code, he used specific words that bloggers and others were able to google and find specific discussions at many rightwing sites about why those specific words implied certain things. Dred Scott implies abortion. You can google Dred Scott and find many conservatives and churches saying Dress Scott implies abortion.
We can’t see or hear dogwhistles. Presumably the dogs can. But if you look back at any of these dogwhistle arguments there is no real evidence for any of the charges. People say: I feel that making this sort of statement is an appeal to racism or sexism. Or I feel that not making it clear that X is a subtle appeal to racism or sexism. The charges cannot be proved. Worse: they cannot be disproved.
That’s why I reject the dogwhistle crap from wherever I see it.
I honestly don’t think that’s what Matt wrote or meant. But Quaker, if you think that’s what Matt wrote and means, than I stand corrected.
Occam’s razor tells me that McCain is pushing his military record and biography because they are very strong,
Well, obviously, because his political record is so very, very weak.
“The charges cannot be proved. Worse: they cannot be disproved.”
Sigh. Jerry, a “code” still has to be “decoded” which is, when a reference isn’t actually, you know, literal code, always a subjective process, which means a reference can be interpreted differently by different people, their conclusions neither provable nor disprovable. That’s why Bush referenced Dred Scott instead of coming right out and directly addressing the question of abortion. You could “decode” it to mean Bush was signaling his base that he shares their understanding of abortion, but how can you prove he was doing that? You couldn’t and that’s why he uses the reference, or “code,” instead of stating the matter directly. The other reason he does it is because the reference to Dred Scott is not going to register with every American who hears the speech, most whom probably have no idea what the case was about. The Dred Scott reference will, however, prick up the ears of a very specific group of targeted people, you know, like a “dog whistle.” The distinction you’re making is non existent.
“I honestly don’t think that’s what Matt wrote or meant.”
What he wrote is not debatable. It’s there in black and white. For some reason, people keep insisting that what he meant is exactly the opposite of what he wrote.
Jon dismisses the issue by chalking up liberal complaints about racism to paranoia. It falls into the same trap more than a few white people and especially conservatives do, where any time someone talks about racism - especially blacks - they are told they are being “too sensitive”. This accusation does not take into account why people may be sensitive about these things in the first place.
I’m far less sensitive than the average black American, and certainly more so than someone from my mom’s generation, or my grandmother’s, or before — yet, its still there.
Personally, I think it smacks of conservative projection anyway.
What he wrote is not debatable. It’s there in black and white. For some reason, people keep insisting that what he meant is exactly the opposite of what he wrote.
Right, well literature and writing and speaking have a long history of people interpreting what was meant by what someone wrote. And what someone wrote even if that was not what they said.
“Miles to go before I sleep.” Sleep refers to death.
“I am the walrus.” Walrus refers to death.
“Hillary tried to get David Schuster fired!” No, she said that that would be the network’s decision but she was protesting his choice of words. When that occurred lots of people were telling us what she was really saying.
Sadly, there exists an almost completely full of baloney field of english interpretation where they spend far more time on what an author didn’t write and how that reflects the actual meaning than what the author did write.
I don’t want to get into the “I’m honestly surprised by you” game Quaker in a Basement, but from reading your comments over the years, yeah, I am a bit surprised to be having this discussion. It honestly saddens me.
What part of “in a discreditable way” do you not understand? He’s not saying the McCain campaign isn’t doing that, but that he’s doing it in a way that cannot be discredited.
Oliver, you’re better than this. I did not dismiss the issue. Both here and in the blog post, I very explicitly wrote that racism is a problem. I very explicitly acknowledge that it has been used by politicians at times. You’re either being willfully obtuse, or you are lying about me. Do you want to argue that I have dismissed the issue of racism? If so, I encourage you to make that argument, so I can write a blog post pointing out what I said and what you said. I’d be glad to compare quotes and see who is correct.
As I said to a commenter at the blog: Oh, I didn’t realize there had been racism in the past. Well, then, every allegation of racism must be true. In fact, perhaps you are being racist right now. I mean, commenters have been racist before, so how can anybody suggest it is unreasonable to claim a commenter is racist.
What part of “in a discreditable way” do you not understand?
The part I don’t understand is where Yglesias is supposedly claiming that McCain is exploiting racism and sexism, but he’s doing it in a way that is “not discreditable.”
Exploiting racism and sexism is always discreditable. There’s no “good” way to do that.
Here’s a suggestion: Before you try to read deeper meaning into something you’ve read, try understanding the plain, obvious meaning of the words you’re reading first.
Slowly for those who are having trouble:
1. The Dems will field an “unorthodox” candidate
2. Some voters won’t like that.
3. McCain is, by definition, an “orthodox” candidate
4. He could court nervous voters by harping on the fears of these voters
5. Yglesias recognizes that McCain’s “biography” strategy doesn’t do that–instead, it highlights his own orthodoxy-ness.
So where, oh where, are Matthew’s vile insinuations of racism against poor, abused Mr. McCain?
P.S. Do see if you can frame your sarcasms in something more inventive than “What part of…don’t you understand?” won’t you?
“He’s not saying the McCain campaign isn’t doing that, but that he’s doing it in a way that cannot be discredited.”
And that is exactly what McCain is doing. Much like Quaker’s point, both Clinton and Obama candidacies represent objective historic change, no matter what actual policies they might advocate because of her gender and his race.
Bundled up in the general fear of change that many people have, are a lot of specific fears, including economic fears and safety fears as well as fears of gender and racial change. Every voter has a hierarchy of fears that shapes their decision making. Some people may be more afraid of economic change and others may be more afraid of racial change or feminism. Those last voters are the voters that no candidate could ever creditably address directly or even indirectly — unless their very, very careful and subtle about it.
By positioning himself as the candidate of continuity and tradition, McCain sweeps up the whole bundle of fears — economic, safety, gender, racial, etc. — without ever having to address anyone of them specifically.
I’m up late watching a documentary about Lee Atwater. Jesus, Jon, you have to be seriously deluded to write something like this:
So that’s it, then? Democrats - whether due to paranoia or calculation - are going to see racism under every rock, and they’re going to exploit the hell out of it.
Atwater made playing the race card acceptable and second nature to a whole generation of conservative political operatives still at work today. Now we have the first major black candidate with a real shot at winning the presidency and you think dems should just chill out, man? You gotta be kidding me.
Jon, you dismissed it in the context of liberals pointing out conservative racism and the use of race-baiting by cons as part of Republican electoral strategy.
You say
Isn’t that a dismissal? You aren’t saying racism doesn’t exist, but you’re trying to lay the groundwork to dismiss liberals pointing out that the right does this all the time. Then it’ll be “this can’t be racism because they were wrong that one time”.
Already in this campaign McCain has had to tell activists on the right to chill with racial/cultural attacks. I’m willing to bet my hat that its going to happen again, and it will have defacto approval from the GOP and most of the con movement.
Isn’t that a dismissal? You aren’t saying racism doesn’t exist, but you’re trying to lay the groundwork to dismiss liberals pointing out that the right does this all the time.
Again. Reading comprehension:
are going to see racism under every rock
IE, they’re going to look for racism in just about everything McCain does or says. These two examples (Sorry Quaker, deny it all you want, but you’re alone on your POV of what Matt is writing) are perfect. They’re absurd, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg.
Then it’ll be “this can’t be racism because they were wrong that one time”.
Actually, that kind if thinking applies to YOU in a sense. “This accusation must be true because there were other accusations that were true.”
Already in this campaign McCain has had to tell activists on the right to chill with racial/cultural attacks.
Yeah I know. The whole middle name thing. I still think that’s pretty funny.
“IE, they’re going to look for racism in just about everything McCain does or says.”
And taking the history of Republican political campaigns as their guide, Democrats are perfectly justified in looking for racism in just about everything McCain does or says. One hundred percent.
Does that mean every suspicion will be well-founded? No. But Matt’s comments hardly rise to the level of paranoia or exaggeration. They make perfect sense in the context of the dynamics of this campaign. Hell, McCain already put out an ad declaring him to “The American president Americans have been waiting for.” You don’t think that isn’t supposed to appeal to the percentage of asshats who think Obama is a stealth muslim because of his middle name? Please.
(Sorry Quaker, deny it all you want, but you’re alone on your POV of what Matt is writing)
Alone, but still right. Story of my life, pal.
Can I get a pair of the special hidden-meaning-decoding glasses Jay and Jon wear? They’re apparently quite powerful.
When Matt Yglesias writes “…it’s the best way I can think of…that doesn’t involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way,” those special glasses apparently reveal the hidden meaning that says “I think McCain actually is exploiting racism and sexism, so now I will try to discredit him for it.”
But then when Jon Henke writes, “Democrats - whether due to paranoia or calculation - are going to see racism under every rock, and they’re going to exploit the hell out of it,” that’s not a dismissal. Even though all claims of racism are crammed into two tidy categories - paranoid or calculated - the super-secret hidden meaning of the statement is completely nonjudgmental and fair.
Where do I get me a pair?
And, excuse me for saying it out loud, but who is actually seeing racism under every rock here?
“…it’s the best way I can think of…that doesn’t involve exploiting racism or sexism in a discreditable way,”
I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I suspect that discreditable is a poor word choice here. Like Quaker says (see you’re not so alone) exploiting racism and sexism is never creditable. It seems to me that Matt is saying McCain is doing it in a way that can’t really be attacked because it’s so indirect, so subtle. Which is to say that what McCain is doing is discreditable, it’s just tough to actually discredit it. That’s really how I read it. And that’s how the rest of the campaign will play out. You think McCain or whatever shadowy “independent citizen’s group” emerges from the slime (with cash enough to produce ads and get it on the air) would run a Willy Horton-style ad against Obama? No way. But I suspect we’ll lots of ads playing up the uncertain, fearful times we live in — war, economic insecurity etc. — to suggest that now is not the time for change, but a time for the familiar and traditional (read: yet another white man in office).
Because policy isn’t going to be the ground on which McCain can win this thing. Americans don’t want another four years of Bush Co which is exactly what McCain advocates. So if policy can’t win, it’s going to be Wedge Issue City this year, just like every other Republican campaign for the last 30 years. And whether it’s Clinton or Obama as the candidate, the wedge issues are going to be feminism and race. Simple as that.
So if policy can’t win, it’s going to be Wedge Issue City this year, just like every other Republican campaign for the last 30 years.
Amazing. Another one that has bought into the notion that a Republican has never won a campaign based on issues or the fact that more Americans agree with their policies than that of their opponents. There’s always a built in excuse for why Democrats lose. It’s amazing.
This notion that it won’t be about policies is absurd. For the first time since I can remember, we’re going to have two Presidential candidates that are going to be sitting Senators. It’s all going to be about voting records and I can tell you right now, that the majority of the public at this point is going to look more favorably upon McCain’s than the other two.
In my view, these stupid accusations about McCain appealing to latent racism by talking about his biography is just another thing to add to the list of excuses Democrats can use should they lose this November.
This notion that it won’t be about policies is absurd.
I, for one, am so glad to hear that.
I expect Democrats will welcome a debate on whether the U.S. should maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years. The Dems will likely prevail in a discussion about the future of health care and social security. We really like talking about the environment–we’re a bunch of tree-hugging wackos, remember?
Taxation and deficits? As soon as Mr. McCain picks a position and sticks with it long enough to discuss it, the Dems will emerge as the party of fiscal responsibility, not the party of taking out another equity loan from the Bank of China.
I’m also very happy to hear that the election will not be about silly “wedge issues” like gay marriage, abortion, silly posturing on illegal immigration, and whether Mr. Obama is actually a Secret Angry Negro.
That’s awesome news, Jay.
Jay, have you not been paying attention for the last two months? Countless hours of Rev. Wright on a loop was about policy? Every Republican strategist suggesting that Rev. Wright will haunt Obama in the general if he’s the nominee is actually talking about policy? Seriously? The Wright issue won’t come back to “haunt” Obama through some mysterious magical power that simple mortals could never understand. The Wright issue will be brought back by Republican operatives who want to make race and Wright the issue, rather than any of the actual policy issues that Quaker lays out.
Jay, the general election campaign has already started and the Republicans have already stated their strategy: If Obama is the nominee it will be Wright all the time, 24/7.
Yes, Fafaroo, I have forgotten about all of the ‘policy’ issues people have discussed about John McCain. Let’s see. Where can we start? Oh how about discussions about his wife and how she’s loaded, and how she was hooked on prescription drugs and how she’s nothing but a “trophy wife.” That’s an important issue. What else? Oh right, John McCain’s temper. That’s another fascinating policy issue that people are bringing up with regard to McCain. Oh and there’s John McCain’s age. Deep thinking there. Oh then there was the supposed affair (”We’re not saying he had an affair! We’re just reporting it!”) with Vicki Iseman. Another intelligent policy discussion. In addition there’s been talk that McCain may not even be an American citizen because of where he was born. And there’s been the talk about his association with John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
I could go on, but I wanted to make sure you had a sense of just how deep and analytical Democratic operatives have been in discussing ‘policy’ with regard to Senator McCain. I’m glad they’re so willing to engage in such serious debates.
If Obama is the nominee it will be Wright all the time, 24/7.
Know what I say? TOUGH SHIT.
I’ve said this before. Democrats made their beds on this one. They’ve been feasting on linking controversial and downright ugly statements made by conservative (white) Pastors for the longest time. Now Democrats are going to have to deal with it. If it makes you feel better to think that the only reason it’s being done is so because Wright is black and not because of what he said,, that’s just grand.
Republicans are going to run a policy based campaign? This is new, a first in my lifetime, and contrary to all evidence we’ve seen to date. Otherwise, it sounds like a good idea for numerous reasons.
Oh then there was the supposed affair (”We’re not saying he had an affair! We’re just reporting it!”) with Vicki Iseman.
Except that wasn’t the real story (largely ignored). The real story was did her proximity to McCain, as a lobbyist, influence him? I think that may be an issue, as does his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN STAFF.
f Obama is the nominee it will be Wright all the time, 24/7.
Know what I say? TOUGH SHIT.
Well, then what are you bitching about? Emotional attacks seem to be fair game.
I’m not saying you don’t raise a valid point, Jay, but everything you mentioned is just as valid as “Obama’s a MOOSLIM!!!11!!” or “his middle name is HUSSEIN!!11!!”
Jay, you’re too much.
First you suggest that Republicans are going to run a strictly policy-based campaign, then, when reminded of very recent republican race baiting you tell us “Tough Shit” because Dems started it, nyah, nyah.
All of the attacks on McCain you layout we’re first employed by the Bush team in 2000 and were re-introduced by Romney Republicans — and then some — in the primary. Right-wing talk was the force driving those attacks, not Dems, who were still in the thick of their own primary fight — and still are. (I note you conveniently left out the special touch of Rove, disciple of Lee Atwater, and the mysterious mailers in 2000 that suggested McCain had an illegitimate black daughter.)
And what’s with the Iseman thing? Are you suggesting that the New York Times reported that story the way it did because Dems put them up to it? Democratic operatives are now writing copy for the Times? Really?
As for the pastor thing, of course race is the reason why Wright’s comments are being pushed as controversial and damaging. Conservatives are arguing that Wright’s comments are racially,/i>
divisive and contrary to Obama’s “post-race” rhetoric. If you don’t know that, just listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Hewitt, Medved, O’Reilly, Rove etc. etc. etc. Race is their primary problem with Wrights comments. Do I have to remind you that Romney’s Mormon theology was declared off limits by Hugh Hewitt and others but now Wright’s theology is the center of attacks on Obama? The reason why it’s fair game is because Wright’s message if born from black experience and directed to blacks.
I was just listening to radio host Dennis Prager, a local LA hack, go on and on about the radical Afro-centritic message of Wright and his church. It’s Wright’s Afro-centrism that’s being spun as anti-American by conservatives. “Black-ethics?” sputtered Prager. “I don’t know what that is but it sounds divisive blah blah blah” before going on to praise the universal inclusivity of Judeo-Christian ethics. Okey dokey.
jay, you really ought to get into the real world more. Seriously.
fix
“All of the attacks on McCain you layout we’re first employed by the Bush team in 2000 and were re-introduced by Romney Republicans — and then some — in the primary.”
That should read “Most of … “
First you suggest that Republicans are going to run a strictly policy-based campaign
Actually, I suggested no such thing.
when reminded of very recent republican race baiting you tell us “Tough Shit” because Dems started it, nyah, nyah.
Make all the lame little jokes you want, but Democrats and their supports cannot with any credibility whine, bitch and and squeal like stuck pigs about attaching a Pastor and the controversial things he said to a candidate, when they’ve made hay out of doing that for almost 15 years.
All of the attacks on McCain you layout we’re first employed by the Bush team in 2000 and were re-introduced by Romney Republicans — and then some — in the primary.
Nice deflection. While some of it may have originated with McCain’s primary opponents, Democrats have been happy to take the baton and carry it on their own. Maybe it’s a habit for you take people for such complete idiots, but I’ve actively been involved in politics and campaigns for nearly 20 years now. Don’t try to bullshit a bullshitter ok? If you seriously believe that Democratic operatives and other players haven’t been pushing those idiotic lines of attack, then you’re just off your rocker.
And maybe some of what Wright has said is being declared racially divisive because….hmmm..let me guess……they are racially divisive? I’ve seen Tony Evans and EV Hill preach and I don’t recall them using such rhetoric. Do you realize how silly your complaints sound? It’s like Republicans accusing Democrats of “gay baiting” when Democrats go after a conservative Pastor who says something controversial about homosexuals. News flash: Criticizing somebody for being racially divisive is not racist.
Do I have to remind you that Romney’s Mormon theology was declared off limits by Hugh Hewitt
Yes and everybody listens to and follows the orders of Hugh Hewitt. Stop it already.
but now Wright’s theology is the center of attacks on Obama
It has nothing to do with Wright’s theology, it has to do with what he said. It’s as simple as that. Whatever political fallout Obama sees as a result of this is his fault. You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.
“Actually, I suggested no such thing.”
Jay, meet Jay:
“It’s all going to be about voting records …”
I guess now you’ll argue now that discussing voting records has nothing to do with policy.
It has nothing to do with Wright’s theology, it has to do with what he said.
Um, Jay, that doesn’t make any sense. Not only because it very much is about the Afro-centric philosophy of Wright’s church. If you don’t believe me, turn on any conservative on the radio or television. It’s non-stop about how Obama was a member of a church that espouses “Black Ethics” and how that’s divisive and contrary to Obama’s own rhetoric.
Of course, your statement is so dumb on its face it hardly deserves a response, unless you want to tell me that “what [Wright} said” is in no way informed by, connected to or an expression of the man’s theological belief system. What your essentially saying is that the controversy isn’t about what Reverend Wright believes, it’s about what he says. That makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.