Obama hits McCain hard:
Money grafs:
One of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can’t disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America’s national interest. Now, it’s time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.
Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America — you served the United States of America.
You know, America’s going to get the president we deserve here. If we go with Jaundiced McNasty, who’s running an ideology-free campaign based on smears and attacks, then we deserve him. For better or for worse, Obama’s running the type of campaign we’ve been claiming we want — one based on ideas and principles, not personal attacks. It would be easy for Obama to attack McCain as old, for example, but he hasn’t. He’s chosen to stay above it. It may work, and it may not…but it won’t be Obama’s fault if it doesn’t; it will be our own.
“one based on ideas and principles”, but what we don’t hear from Obama is procedures and processes. He talks a good game, but he rarely gets into detail about how he plans to implement his changes.
I think this is one reason why many continue to view him as inexperienced. They know that McCain will be able to function even with a Democrat Congress, but many doubt that Obama has the clout to win over that same Democrat Congress despite his own party membership.
This is the missing piece in Obama’s campaign, leadership of the party. McCain has already proven his ability to lead with or without his party’s endorsement, but Obama has not. Uniting the Democrat party would go far to prove Obama’s leadership credentials, but right now, the Democrats are as fractured as ever, if not more so.
If we go with Jaundiced McNasty, who’s running an ideology-free campaign based on smears and attacks
Elapsed wordcount from smear to decrying smears: nine. A new world’s record!
Uniting the Democrat party would go far to prove Obama’s leadership credentials, but right now, the Democrats are as fractured as ever, if not more so.
Little has changed since Will Rogers’ day.
And yet, when he did offer policy specifics, he got called ‘professorial’ and an egghead, just like Al Gore. His policies, especially on the economy, are far more well-developed and detailed than John McCain, but the thing is, there is nothing a Democrat can do to avoid false smears.
So hey, why try? Why not just call them bullshit and move on?
Au contraire!
—Myca
They know that McCain will be able to function even with a Democrat Congress, but many doubt that Obama has the clout to win over that same Democrat Congress despite his own party membership.
I don’t know. I think it’s highly questionable that a Republic like McCain can function with a Democratic congress. Hell, he has hardly been able to function in a campaign with a Republic President to support him. His Democratic opponent, OTOH, has shown the ability to lead a large scale campaign as flawlessly as can be expected. The Republic candidate’s campaign for president has been strewn with mistakes large and small. Large swaths of the Republic party dislike him and his incessant flip-flopping on issues that are important to Republics.
Whether you are a member of the Democratic Party, the Republic Party or another party (or none), I think it’s clear both that McCain & the Republics are in dire straits and that those who insist on calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party” show so little respect for others that the rest of us are better off ignoring their petulance.
I don’t think calling him “Jaundiced McNasty” is a smear – Describing him as “jaundiced” or “nasty” is pure opinion which does not say anything substatively false and prejudicial.
On the other hand, the use of a disparaging name is an attack, so: eleven words.
Jake, you’re awesome.
—Myca
Describing him as “jaundiced” or “nasty” is pure opinion which does not say anything substatively false and prejudicial.
Daran, I believe you are incorrect. Jeff may not be false but he is being prejudice; it is pure ageism, which is surprising coming from a blog that roots out prejudice in many different venues. He is “jaundiced” because he is old and Jeff would not have that opinion of a 40 year old McCain. If he called an overweight person “Lardy McSweaty”, it is surely his opinion since he a) objectively has a lot of fat, and b) sweats a lot. But do you think for one second that Amp would find that acceptable? Making comments about someone’s physical appearance to demean his politics would not be acceptable around here if it were about weight, or race, or gender. So why does age get a pass?
Ageism, sexism, sizeism, transphobia, ableism are all generally (not universally) acceptable on the left when the target is a right-winger. Racism and homophobia seem to be the exceptions; I see plenty of “Ann Coulter is a tranny” and “McCain is a geezer” type comments, but relatively few slams on (say) Condi Rice for being a POC.
To their credit, there are some on the left who are staunch in opposing this.
Jaundiced:
1. bitter or cynical: the financial markets are taking a jaundiced view of the Government’s motives
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jaundiced
And, once again, Jesus christ our site is being dominated by people actively hostile to its purpose and its posters.
I understood “jaundiced” the way Mandolin did. It never occured to me to take it as a reference either to his age or health. I think “McNasty” is in much the same mold as “McSame”. It’s an insult, but it doesn’t make a factual claim that can be judged to be true or false.
I’m not giving it a pass. I just don’t think the word “smear” is correct where there is no false factual claim.
No, but neither of those terms admit of an interpretation similar to that of “Jaundiced”. I don’t consider “McNasty” acceptable either. I wouldn’t allow it on my blog, but “not acceptable” doesn’t imply “smear”.
Daran,
It’s true that my fat example doesn’t have a secondary meaning. But how about Lethargic McFatty? Or something like that. I do think it’s interesting how I immediately went to the more technical definition of ‘jaundiced’. Perhaps it was the “nasty” which I associated with an unpleasant appearance, rather than ill-tempered. I still don’t think that name-play insults are particularly effective when you are accusing someone of doing nothing but personal attacks. And I do agree that it wasn’t actually a “smear” but in this context, “insult” and “smear” have the same negative affect on the operator.
Mandolin,
1, you found the only on-line dictionary that puts the metaphorical definition of jaundiced before the physical one; I applaud you.
2, I am not hostile towards the purpose of this blog or its posters. I am admittedly not in ideological lock-step but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in many of the things this blog is, particularly issues of sexuality and race, because a) I’m gay and b) I’m actually funded by the government to foment diversity in my field in which minority participation is woefully underrepresented. But I don’t entirely agree with the methods by which the posters feel we should bring about social justice. But then if I only read blogs I totally agreed with I’d be close-minded or, worse, I’d be dull. Petty name-play insults that lack cleverness, whether they be age-related or not, are stupid and counterproductive.
But if it makes you happy I’ll take this off my blogroll and stop reading it.
Alaska Women Reject Palin’ Rally is HUGE!
The following is making the rounds:
More than likely a lot of people feel this way also.
” “Buchanan to Obama
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.?
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a 2-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard.
And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks.
It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans.
Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over
America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??
Barack talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids.?
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are 7 times those of white America ?
Is it really white America ‘s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70% and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50%?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence.
Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims
3% of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45% of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first 3 years of this decade.
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley,
the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes.
But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all
before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars
ago.” “
Wow. Buchanan continues to be one steaming pile of racist, elitist crap after all these years. The nicest thing I can say about this racist screed is that it is chock full of factual errors.
My girlfriend, who is newly come to politics after a lifetime of strict political neutrality, was shocked and amazed to see Buchanan doing political analysis after the vice-presidential debates.
“Wait,” she said, “is he that Buchanan?”
“Sure,” I said.
Her voice filled with amazement. “How can they let him on television?”
Even folks who know just about nothing about politics know he’s not just a loon, but a legendary loon.
—Myca