Monday, October 13, 2008

Why are Obama's people so angry?

Stephanie Cutter, a spokeman for the Obama campaign, was on Fox News Sunday feverishly complaining about the anger she is seeing in the McCain campaign.

And it really made her mad.

I could swear the veins in her forehead were showing. In fact, she was extremely exercised over the fact that there were people who disagreed with her. What made angr... er, what got her so upset was that the McCain campaign was pointing out things about her candidate that, well, made them angry.

Like the fact that Obama has had past associations with a guy that set of a bomb at the Pentagon and doesn't feel bad about it.

Cutter--and the Obama campaign--can't figure out why anyone would be upset that a guy is running for president who has associated with a known, unrepentant, proud left-wing terrorist.

And it really makes her...

...Angry.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stephanie would really bust a gut if she knew how many Democrats won't vote Obama because of skin color alone.

Lee said...

A lot of liberals would bust a gut if they would stop only and consider for a moment that a lot of white people wouldn't even vote for a white person who hung around former terrorists.

In any event, Martin, you know as well as I do that liberals aren't angry. Liberals are righteously indignant. Only conservatives are angry.

sporcupine said...

All people that on earth do dwell,
Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice.
Him serve with fear, His praise forth tell;
Come ye before Him and rejoice.

The Lord, ye know, is God indeed;
Without our aid He did us make;
We are His folk, He doth us feed,
And for His sheep He doth us take.

O enter then His gates with praise;
Approach with joy His courts unto;
Praise, laud, and bless His Name always,
For it is seemly so to do.

For why? the Lord our God is good;
His mercy is for ever sure;
His truth at all times firmly stood,
And shall from age to age endure.

--William Kethe's edition of Psalm 100, and the perfect statement of this liberal's outlook on the current situation.

Lee said...

It's nice to know the religious right isn't the only group that likes to introduce God's word into the political debate.

Anonymous said...

I bet Mrs. Cutter was so angry she yelled "kill him!" Maybe she even had a monkey she called McCain.

And Lee, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sarah Palin doesn't only pal around with secessionists, she's married to one. And the group he was involved with (that she supported enough to be a keynote speaker) sought out and obtained support from IRAN. Palin pals around with subversive political elements with direct ties to Iran.

And we won't even talk about McCain's links to Nicaraguan death squads, supported by Nazi organizations.

This game is fun.

Anonymous said...

I have a monkey named McCain. He's mean and ornery and always bites those who feed him.

Anonymous said...

You'd be angry too if you had to deal with Michelle everyday.

Lee said...

> And Lee, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mois?

> And Lee, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

> Sarah Palin doesn't only pal around with secessionists, she's married to one. And the group he was involved with (that she supported enough to be a keynote speaker) sought out and obtained support from IRAN. Palin pals around with subversive political elements with direct ties to Iran.

Why haven't they been indicted?

> And we won't even talk about McCain's links to Nicaraguan death squads, supported by Nazi organizations.

The Queen of England is also heavily involved in the drug trade, and fluoridation of our drinking water is a communist plot.

Is anyone making these charges except for over at the fever swamps of Kosville?

Lee said...

> I have a monkey named McCain. He's mean and ornery and always bites those who feed him.

Do what I do: don't feed him.

This race would be a lot more interesting if there were a conservative in it.

sporcupine said...

"A politically progressive evangelicalism is not an innovation, it is a revival; not a fresh track in the snow, but a rutted path of American history."

--Michael Gerson

Lee said...

If we want to talk about rutted paths, let's also say a few words about atheistic regimes such as Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Even a rut is better than a pit.

Anonymous said...

"Why haven't they been indicted?"

Because they don't appear to have broken any laws. But neither did Obama in his association with Ayers, and William Timmons (the head of McCain's transition team) didn't break any laws either when he lobbied for Saddam Hussein in the nineties.

The head of the Alaskan Independence Party, Joe Voegler, appeared before the United Nations and said that the US was a tyranny. That speech was sponsored by the government of Iran. Is that not anti-american enough for you?

"Is anyone making these charges except for over at the fever swamps of Kosville?"

McCain himself, he's the one who boasted about donating money directly to the contras after congress cut off aid due to their terroristic activities. The Washington post reported on it in '88:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1238618.html

Here's some more details about the Nazi relations: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761/

Lee said...

>> "Why haven't they been indicted?"

> "Because they don't appear to have broken any laws."

I don't even know at this point what they did. "Seeking aid from Iran?" When? In what capacity? That wasn't against the law? Any proof that they did? And what does it have to do with Palin?

Bear in mind that all kinds of politicians have had "relationships", depending on how that's defined, with unsavory groups, and many times only find out after the fact. To me, that's the clincher. I'm pretty sure Obama knew who Ayers was.

Would it be a big deal if McCain had an association with David Duke similar to Obama's relationship with Ayers?

> The head of the Alaskan Independence Party, Joe Voegler, appeared before the United Nations and said that the US was a tyranny. That speech was sponsored by the government of Iran. Is that not anti-american enough for you?

Certainly would be, but I don't know enough about the specifics to know how that splashes on Palin. What exactly did Voegler say? When he said it, was he speaking for the AIP? Has anyone in the AIP condemned what he said? Did Palin know he said it when she spoke at their convention? Does she speak at other conventions for other types of groups as a routine?

As I have pointed out in another thread, by the way, there is nothing unconstitutional about secession. The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that indeed it was, but asserting it is so, and it being so, are two different things. The argument was settled by force, not by logic, reason, or the law. My position is that the Tenth Amendment reserves that right to the states because it is not denied to them in the rest of the Constitution. Saying they have a right to secede, and saying they should secede, are different things. I'm only saying there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it.

> McCain himself, he's the one who boasted about donating money directly to the contras after congress cut off aid due to their terroristic activities.

Congress, as I recall, cut off their aid due to the *assertion* of their activities as terrorist. Congress does not now, and did not then, always make accusations based on fact. Now, however, we've discovered what it is that makes the left smolder in hatred for McCain: he fought communists. That's quite enough to explain it.

> Here's some more details about the Nazi relations: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761/

Okay, let's see if I follow this: McCain was a POW when his father talked to Gen. Singlaub about his son's predicament, and Singlaub founded an anti-communist group which is "linked" to unnamed Nazi collaborators.

So that makes McCain a Nazi collaborator?

Pretty weak, if that's the best they've got.

And I see the AP "reporter" just mindlessly repeats the red herring that Obama was only eight when Ayers performed his misdeeds, as if that's the issue.

Art said...

"Now, however, we've discovered what it is that makes the left smolder in hatred for McCain: he fought communists. That's quite enough to explain it."

McCain fought communists by giving the murderers who killed my cousin on 9/11 money, arms, and training.

Apparently, now the 9/11 terrorists are "good" terrorists in the eyes of McCain's supporters. It's amazing how a political campaign changes one's opinions, no?

Lee said...

> McCain fought communists by giving the murderers who killed my cousin on 9/11 money, arms, and training.

How did McCain do that?

Lee said...

And for about the tenth time on this board: I am not supporting McCain. I am not voting for McCain, nor for Obama. I don't like McCain. I wish there were a conservative in the race.

And all I keep asking is this question, which is an easy enough question to answer -- yes or no -- but I can't seem to get one:

If McCain and David Duke had a relationship similar to Obama and Ayers, would it be a legitimate issue in the campaign?

Yes or no.

Anyone? Bueller?

sporcupine said...

By question, do you mean an inquiry susceptible to being resolved by facts?

Or do you mean a magic talisman to be repeated indefinitely, but not with any intent of allowing information to matter.

Yes, any association between John McCain and an admitted white supremacist, especially one ready to press his or her case with force, would be a legitimate as an actual question.

It would be hugely tiresome as an infinitely repeated incantation designed to spread fear rather than to move toward understanding.

sporcupine said...

P.S. Lasting associations with secessionist parties are also fair game.

For example, "Are you for or against Alaska leaving the Union?"

For example, "When did you learn of Mr. Vogler's contacts with the Iranian government? Have you ever espressed concerns about those events? To whom? With what result?"

For example, "When you say the Pledge of Allegiance, do you say the word 'indivisible'? If you say it, what do you think it means?"

Lee said...

> Yes, any association between John McCain and an admitted white supremacist, especially one ready to press his or her case with force, would be a legitimate as an actual question.

So then how can it not be a legitimate issue, tiresome or not, for McCain to use against Obama?

Are people who terrorize in the name of hippie-dippie peacenik values in a different category than people who terrorize in the name of what Duke stood for?

If so, then terrorism per se is not bad; it only matters what issue one is terrorizing for.

If not, then enough with trying to argue the Ayers connection is a distraction. It may not work for McCain; there may be other issues McCain ought to address; but the issue is still a valid one to bring up.

> It would be hugely tiresome as an infinitely repeated incantation designed to spread fear rather than to move toward understanding.

Are you saying fear is never justified? Or are you saying that by moving toward understanding, you necessarily move past fear?

I agree it's a legitimate issue, only it's not the same thing. As I said earlier, I think secession is constitutional and should be lawful. As a policy decision, it can still be the wrong policy. Fine, hold Palin's butt to the fire if all the accusations turn out to be true, but it can't be called terrorist in the same way that Ayers' activities can be.

Lee said...

> For example, "When you say the Pledge of Allegiance, do you say the word 'indivisible'? If you say it, what do you think it means?"

The Pledge of Allegiance is great; I say it, and I mean it. But the Pledge of Allegiance is not the Constitution. I don't think it is by definition an act of treason to advocate secession. It's not the same thing as saying, "Death to the U.S.!" More like, "I don't want to play anymore."

Moot point. The issue was settled well over a hundred years ago by violence. It's over now. The Tenth Amendment no longer has any practical meaning. The federal government intrudes at will.

Art said...

">> McCain fought communists by giving the murderers who killed my cousin on 9/11 money, arms, and training.

>How did McCain do that?"

By supporting radical Islamic terrorists in the 1980's, groups that "evolved" into Al-Qaeda.

How can we trust this country to someone who has shown such abysmally poor judgment, one who has provided material support to people who perpetrated the most devastating terrorist attack in US history?

Lee said...

Let's take what you say at face value for the sake of argument:

McCain gave money to people who would one day form al Qaida and bomb the WTC twenty years later. He failed to predict who would become a menace to our society.

Obama accepted money and support from someone who bombed various sites including the Pentagon almost four decades ago. He failed to respond responsibly to someone who actually had been a menace to our society.

If McCain is to be blamed for lack of foresight, what do we blame Obama for? Lack of hindsight?

Which one is easier, foresight or hindsight?