But on a serious note, McCain and Palin have been having a very good time taking what they have heard out of their camp about Obama, his connections to known terrorists, his connection to Acorn, his college record, and spewing it all over the place. At rallies, in TV ads, anywhere that they can be heard. But that all came to a crashing halt when McCain was at a rally and the crowd started telling him that they hated Obama, that they wanted to get rid of him, and that they felt he was an evil person.
Woman at rally: I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab.
Sen. John McCain: No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. That's what this campaign is all about. He's not, thank you.
So McCain, had his chance to basically side with this woman and lay it all on the line. I mean that is what they were waiting for, he had been building it up all along the trail, that is why these people came to the rally, not to hear about what he stood for, but to hear him agree with their fears, and when he down played it all, they started to boo him.
So how do you come back from that, do you reverse your strategy and stop all of the none sense, but if you do, you lose all respect of your voters, is it worth it, I think so. Because honestly it shows that they are not voting for the right reasons. Hopefully when McCain went home and was able to access what had happened that day, hopefully he will realize that he could have incensed people toward hatred and that is not what this country needs at this point. Because no matter what anyone thinks about Obama, he is a Family man before he is anything else.
I was in church on Sunday and the one thing that they preached about that stood out was that when a home is in Division, it will not stand. When a country is divided, it will not prosper.
We need to stop all of this bickering and get down to what really matters. Because when it is all set and done and the next President is elected into office, we can not be a divided country, we need to be a UNITED country.
4 comments:
Hey David,
I like your approach here. I think you have found an angle to this story that is unique.
Although I tend to lean to the left, I like to keep my ear on what's being said on talk radio (mostly conservative), and especially Fox News (Right-Wing propaganda outfit). The old addage "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" applies here.
I think you may be missing something. A lot has been made of the virtual "high road" in this election. It was well known from the start that Obama planned to take this route in campaigning and debate. The Democrats chose to use third party interest groups for bomb throwing. McCain doesn't need to follow this strategy. The Republican Party has near monopolistic control of talk radio, and deep-pocketed allie in Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox).
When McCain hears his constituency screaming slanderous statements, he can do like Obama, and take the "high road." This makes him seem like a decent, understanding, maybe even Christian (he's not a Christian) man. It's classic politics: Let some unknown asassin shoot from the darkness, while you publicly condemn the bullet, figuratively speaking.
The hate oozing from the mouths of these people (Democrat or Republican) should not be attributed to anything but perpetuated, systematic ignorance. Remember, hate is the strongest of emotions, and is an effective political motivator. It has kept us divided for centuries.
The thing is, though, the individual is not totally at fault. The system that perpetuates this ignorance is the main culprit.
You said "when a country is divided, it will not prosper". That is 100% true. A system of constant competition, and built in animosity keeps people apart. Freedom does not promote unity. However, "unity by force" doesn't promote prosperity. We have to find the balance between individuality and unity. Otherwise, you an I will have to endure elections like this one for the rest of our lives.
For this reason, among others, I will be "wasting" my vote on an independent party. It sounds stupid to vote for a candidate who has no chance at victory, but I feel that if we continue to allow these people to dictate who we vote for, democracy will eventually be flushed down the toilet.
To Joel Galloway...
I find your perspective to be, interesting to say the least. I get where you are trying to go with this, however I have to say I disagree with your assessments.
I don't think David necessarily missed the "virtual high road" on this one. It doesn't matter if the candidate says it or not - he is responsible for his party (not talking 3rd party swift boat types). If someone gets out of line, it is up to the candidate to put and end to it. Period.
Second, I would challenge you to find an Obama or Democratic party ad that attacks McCain as an individual - not on policy - attack his character, attack him as a person. Find something similar to the character attacks being put on Obama (i.e., he is socialist, affiliated with terrorists therefore must have a terrorist mindset, he is Muslim, he is Arab, anti-American, etc. Please - find me something similar that has been projected against McCain from Obama campaign or the Democratic party. See if you are going to lump all kinds of attacks into one category - then you are not as left leaning as you suggest. Left's are notorious for making the distinction between policy attacks and personal attacks. Oh and when you hear the media mentioning "this candidate spent this much on negative or attack ads" keep in mind they are referring to ones that say - "this person's position on social security is..." AND "this person associates with domestic terrorists".
Third, I would also challenge you on this: "The thing is, though, the individual is not totally at fault. The system that perpetuates this ignorance is the main culprit. " The system is not driving the ignorance, the ignorance is driving the system. What I mean by that is this... the candidates would not do it if it did not affect votes. Now since you are saying this has partially affected your decision not vote for a candidate that could actually win, even if you are not voting for one - you are also not voting for the opposition either. So apparently, negative attacks do work - I suspect it may take a bit longer for us to weed it out of the system using that method - but that's just my opinion on the matter.
To "The One"
First of all, I challenge you to explain why you think being called a socialist, or a muslim is considered a "character attack". I, personally, don't believe these to be character flaws. In fact, on the subject of my leftist credentials, I am a registered Socialist (however, I will not be voting for Brian Moore, as I disagree with his stand on immigration reform).
Second, I agree with you that Obama supporters have mainly focused on policy attacks, whereas, in line with tradition, the Right wing has attempted to embrace the hatred harbored by its constituency. However, attacks are attacks, and they are equally useful in clouding the real issues at hand in any given election.
Third, we can go back and forth all day about whether the system perpetuates the ignorance, or the ignorance perpetuates the system. It will end up sounding like a Jean-Paul Sartre rant. I would say (as you attacked my leftness) that maybe you aren't as left as you think you are. Aren't Democrats supposed to believe that the only way to fix the problem is to fix the system. You sound like a Libertarian with that "ignorance is driving the system" stuff. In other words, you think individuals have to take the initiative to rise above the ignorance and evolve? I like the idea, but it is not realistic.
Now, as far as the rest of your last paragraph goes, I agree with the statement "the candidate would not do it if it did not affect votes". In fact, that was my point, exactly. I said, "Remember, hate is the strongest of emotions, and is an effective political motivator." Same thing. After that, you kind of lost me with that run-on sentence about my vote. I think you trying to say that a vote for a third party is a vote for McCain. Okay, that's a fair statement. However, if we continue to neglect these third parties, we will never have a true democracy. This is ironic, considering we claim to be the "champions of democracy." (before combatting this statement, please refer to the open-primary systems currently being used in much of Northern Europe).
Thank you for the debate,
Joel Galloway
Hi Joel.
Personally, I don't think it should be used as an attack and I think all Arabs, Muslims and Socialists should be offended. But they would not be using it if the did not believe that it would scare, turn off, or create mistrust in the minds of some Americans. I think you and I agree on this, but you have to admit they are not referring to him in these ways to compliment him on his character.
"Second, I agree with you that Obama supporters have mainly focused on policy attacks, whereas, in line with tradition, the Right wing has attempted to embrace the hatred harbored by its constituency. However, attacks are attacks, and they are equally useful in clouding the real issues at hand in any given election." --- I don't understand this. I thought the real issues we were supposed to be thinking about were the policies? I believe both candidates have every right to challenge each other on policy positions. That is what we need, that is how we have the debate and find out what they stand for. That is what Obama has done. Personal attacks are out of line, McCain should know this first hand. These tactics I do not respect.
I apologize for making you the feel as though I was attacking your 'leftness'. What I said was "See if you are going to lump all kinds of attacks into one category - then you are not as left leaning as you suggest." What I meant is not all challenges to an individual are an "attack" as explained above. If you and I work together, and I complain about your work ethic affecting my ability to do my job, that is appropriate. If I complain that I overheard you on the phone saying you're mother was an atheist, you have a funny last name, your father was a Muslim and one of your friends robbed a bank 20 years ago... that has nothing to do with your ability to do your job and is not appropriate. That would make me look unprofessional and it would not be tolerated in the workplace. I know a few conservative leaning people and your comment reminded me of them a little bit, things are one way, that is how they have always been, there is no difference. period. Though I may not have been correct so I do apologize again.
"Aren't Democrats supposed to believe that the only way to fix the problem is to fix the system. You sound like a Libertarian with that "ignorance is driving the system" stuff. In other words, you think individuals have to take the initiative to rise above the ignorance and evolve? I like the idea, but it is not realistic."
Actually I am not a Democrat, I am an Independent. I am not always left or right on everything, but I consider each situation individually. I think that's more realistic approach, at least it is for me. What I meant by ignorance is driving the system is this. Take our oil problem. Do you think we are addicted to oil because of policies implemented? Or do you think the policies implemented are to support our existing addiction to oil? When Jimmy Carter was running for his second term, we had this same problem - we needed to find an alternative. Carter took one approach to solving the problem - which was to say that we need to sacrifice, use less and try to find alternatives. It may not be easy but in the long run we will be better off. Reagan took another approach by saying our way of life is not negotiable and worked to increase Americans influence in the Middle East to try and avoid possible interruption of our oil supplies. Do you see the difference in approach? Use less and find something better or make sure we have access to as much oil as we need to we don't have to sacrifice anything. The driving force was our consumption and the policies created were designed to support it. Would you agree with that? As you suggest, it may be unrealistic, but in my mind that has been our problem and that is the ignorance I was referring to. It takes a major catastrophe for anything to happen in this country.
Additionally, I think this is the clear difference between Obama and McCain. Obama is saying let's put our main focus on alternatives. McCain is saying Drill baby Drill.
"I think you trying to say that a vote for a third party is a vote for McCain." Actually I was saying while your vote may not be for McCain - it is not for Obama either. if I were a candidate and there was no way I could win your vote over, the next best thing would be for you not to vote for my opponent either. As long as he is not getting more votes than me - I still have a chance in the event my base of supporters is larger than his.
Post a Comment