So … there’s been a lot of discussion lately of what the likely press/blogosphere/echo-chamber response would have been if the Obamas had a daughter who was in the same situation as Bristol Palin. Of course it would be a gigantic disaster, of course it would be deeply racist, and of course there would be legions of talking heads solemnly explaining why attacking a teenage girl personally is totally relevant see it goes to judgment and leadership and … and … and …
Anyway. I’m in agreement with virtually everyone on the left that this is bullshit and that Bristol needs to be left alone, but I actually wanted to play the same kind of thought experiment on a slightly different topic:
Can anyone imagine what the response would be if Barack Obama nominated a Vice President who’d belonged to a radical secessionist party?
I mean, John McCain has been playing cutesy games impugning Obama’s patriotism (based on fuck-all) anyhow … what if there had been an actual reason? Can anyone imagine that it would mean anything except the end of the Obama candidacy?
But somehow, when John Mccain does it, it’s okay. The usual commenters on the right who would be declaring anone else a worthless no-good un-American un-patriotic traitor are silent. Is this an ‘only Nixon can go to China’ kind of thing? Is McCain’s patriotism so assumed that it won’t be questioned even when he does something that is actually and literally un-American?
The thing to keep in mind about the phrase ‘only Nixon can go to China’ is why. Only Nixon could engage China diplomatically because if anyone to his left had done it, he would have seen to it that that person was smeared as a soft-on-communism appeaser, if not a closet communist himself. And Nixon could rest assured that the national press would have aided and abetted this characteriation of his enemies. The same thing is true here.
John McCain has no problem nominating a radical extremist with ties to secessionist groups, because he knows that he’s the only one who could get away with it. Once again, it’s okay if you’re a Republican.
Can anyone imagine what the response would be if Barack Obama nominated a Vice President who’d belonged to a radical secessionist party?
Probably about the same as the response if he was on friendly terms with an unrepentant anti-American terrorist, or if he went to a church helmed by a radical pastor: sound and fury in the media, signifying little-to-nothing electorally. The people who wouldn’t have liked him anyway will be reinforced in their not-liking, and the people who like him will either decide it isn’t important or that the objectionable nature of the people making the charges somehow obfuscates the charges’ merit.
I know that you’re too smart to need this explained, but since you brought it up:
* Serving on the board of a charity with someone who committed criminal acts when you were 7 years old is not an endorsement of that person’s views, or of that person’s acts.
* Going to a church in which you don’t agree with every statement the pastor makes is not the same as endorsing the pastor’s views.
In contrast, joining a political party is an endorsement of that party.
I guess if you don’t give a shit about political substance or anything but shallow point-scoring, you can pretend that joining a political party is the same as working on a charity board with someone who was a criminal when you were 7 years old.
Oh, and by the way: Yay! Myca posted! :-p
And I agree with Myca: this would be the Story of the Century if it was Joe Biden with ties to a radical, anti-American, secessionist group. But because it’s a Republican doing it, there’s a good chance that the mainstream media will give it a pass.
And I agree with Myca: this would be the Story of the Century if it was Joe Biden with ties to a radical, anti-American, secessionist group.
This is a great example of the difference between the two campaigns. One knows that you need to vet potential VP’s, the other seems to be at the level of the Portland branch of the state’s Green Party in 2000.
Seriously, how is the lack of vetting by the McCain campaign not an enormous issue – even to republicans? I look forward to the nomination to the Supreme Court of a pro-life, pro-gun cannibal.
His connections to Ayers and Wright are significantly closer than your spin, but that isn’t really material. If you really want to get into an argument over how tightly he’s bound to these men, and how much he can be said to endorse their philosophies, we can. I got lots of bookmarks. ;)
The point is that this type of story doesn’t have huge traction with the electorate, and so the answer to the original OP’s bolded question is, basically, “not much”.
I have much closer ties with my cousin, who’s so right wing he makes you look liberal, than Obama has with either Ayers or Wright. That doesn’t say jack about my political views. Being “close” to someone or having “ties” isn’t politically meaningful. It’s guilt by association, and it’s bullshit.
Are you claiming that Obama has endorsed the political and policy positions of Ayers circa 40 years ago? Or that Obama has endorsed the two statements made by Wright that Foxnews played about a thousand times? If not, you’ve got nothing to say but the usual shallow smears that make America stupider.
Sarah Polin did, in fact, join a political party with radical secessionist views. That’s not a smear, or guilt-by-association; it’s a fact, and it’s one that relates directly to her political views.
Are you really unable to tell the difference between guilt by association and joining a secessionist party?
ETA: Plus, as others have said, the gulf between having a pastor, and inviting someone to be vice president, is wider than the grand canyon.
To give an idea of how extremist the AIP is, here’s a quote from the “introduction” page of their website. The quote is in big letters, and is posted above the main content of the page.
The entire page is quoted from some political encyclopedia, but they still chose to put it there, and presumably chose the layout and font size. The person quoted is, I believe, the founder of the party.
Thanks for proving my point, Robert.
See, what I’m learning is that the Right doesn’t have principles . . . not even the ‘wrong principles’ I thought they had. Not even things like ‘low taxes’ and ‘less government’ and ‘wooo America’.
What the right has is poses. They’ll use these poses to gain power, but that’s their sole purpose. They don’t go beyond that, so if, after performing the calculations, they figure out that they’ll be more likely to gain power by discarding that pose, they go for it.
Hell, they don’t even really need to actually discard the pose most of the time! It’s like they’ve got an immunity to cognitive dissonance.
That’s sad, and frankly, delusional. When the press is abuzz for months about Reverend Wright, who’s not even on the ticket, to imagine that their response would somehow be less for a Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate enters the realm of fantasy.
Actually, I think the best example of the difference between the two campaigns and the two men was Obama’s denunciation of attacks on Bristol Palin. Despite all of the slimy attacks on Michelle from McCain’s surrogates, he’s still taking the high road, and doing so forcefully and eloquently.
:-)
—Myca
You can’t possibly be serious, Robert. Obama hasn’t chosen Wright or Ayers to help him run the country. If he picked someone with secessionist ties, every news outlet in the country, led by Faux and the AP, would be (credibly) charging Obama with putting the country at risk and criminal lack of judgment, and talking heads would be muttering darkly (pun intended) about the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and everything in between.
I’m not exactly a “my country right or wrong” type, and the AIP link gives even me pause.
* Serving on the board of a charity with someone who committed criminal acts when you were 7 years old is not an endorsement of that person’s views, or of that person’s acts.
True. But even associating with such a person who is unrepentant about those acts would be anathema to me. And I certainly wouldn’t have launched my first successful political campaign out of his living room.
This AIP thing does raise valid questions, no doubt. I have a few questions of my own, based on a single one – what exactly did she actually do? Did she show up at a meeting, formally join the party, issue a statement supporting them, send in money, or what? I know that someone from the AIP claims she joined, but that’s in their self interest to do so. Has she said she joined that party? Has AIP offered any records showing she joined? I also watched the video. It struck me more as “Welcome to town, have a good time!” than it did “Yay! Independence for Alaska! Let’s secede!”
Note to self: before posting, check to see if Amp and Myca have already made my point with considerably more verve.
*sigh*
I actually think Palin’s bogus “reformist” and “cost-cutting” cred is more likely to get media attention and bring her and McCain low than the AIP thing, because she measured her own rope with her acceptance speech. This is the woman who grabbed $27 mil worth of earmarks in four years as mayor of Wasilla.
In any case, I don’t really want the media to go after her, I want them to go after McCain’s horrible judgment, the product of that very same “maturity” and “experience” that he’s running on.
Amp:
I have much closer ties with my cousin, who’s so right wing he makes you look liberal, than Obama has with either Ayers or Wright. That doesn’t say jack about my political views. Being “close” to someone or having “ties” isn’t politically meaningful. It’s guilt by association, and it’s bullshit.
The issue of ties and association has to also include the issue of choice. Your cousin is your cousin. You have no choice about the matter. There’s no reason to expect your views to reflect his and every reason to expect that failing criminal conduct you’ll continue to associate with him and be at least polite.
OTOH, Sen. Obama’s associations with Ayers and Wright are both matters of choice – in the case of his pastor, a quite deliberate one based on the New Yorker link you gave me a while back. You look around for a church, pick one to attend that has a very well-known character and reputation and then go there for 20 years and bring your children there to be taught and it’s reasonable to expect some congruence between your beliefs and those of your pastor.
Frankly, I was shocked at some of the things I read in that piece. It stated quite matter-of-factly that one reason Sen. Obama chose Trinity Church was because he thought the people he met there would help him advance his political career. I had heard this before and defended him against the assertion. I figured that it was another extremist right-wing slur. I was amazed to find it presented in print by the New Yorker. Up to this point my opposition to his candidacy was based on the policies and actions I expect him to put into place (and the ones he won’t), but if this is true I’m actually starting to doubt his character.
Frankly, I was shocked at some of the things I read in that piece. It stated quite matter-of-factly that one reason Sen. Obama chose Trinity Church was because he thought the people he met there would help him advance his political career. I had heard this before and defended him against the assertion.
Yeah, that’s terrible. Republicans never use batshit crazy churches to advance their political careers, do they?
IOKIARDI.
… but if this is true I’m actually starting to doubt his character.
Because McCain’s character is beyond reproach. Right.
Sarah Polin did, in fact, join a political party with radical secessionist views. That’s not a smear, or guilt-by-association; it’s a fact, and it’s one that relates directly to her political views.
Except for the part about her not joining the party. She visited their convention, as the mayor of Wasilla, in 2000, when the convention was in Wasilla. Journalistic hint: that someone says something is true, does not make the something true. In this case, people with a huge PR interest in claiming Palin did so – but the facts are otherwise.
Hey, I attended the DNC this year. I must be a Democrat!
Ron, I’m not forced to associate with my cousin at all. There are a few members of my family who haven’t spoken a word to other members of my family in years (in one case, over a decade).
Also, you’ve been questioning Obama’s character for many months now. I don’t “question” it [his character], because I’ve always thought he was a canny politician driven by ambition. What puzzles me is your apparent unwillingness to ever question McCain’s character, and your apparent disinterest in policy as a way of justifying what I suspect will be your vote for McCain.
Finally, I don’t think the views of Trinity Church are extreme, let alone (to use Thene’s word, although he may have just meant Hagee) “batshit.” As far as I can tell, the substantive views of the Church — as opposed to the couple of exceptional, out-of-context quotes that the MSM ran a billion times — are mostly well within the mainstream of US political discourse (although on the left side of the mainstream).
Amp! :O This is the second time an Alaser has pegged me as male. The first time it was either Ron or Robert, I forget which, and one of the mods slammed them for blindly using a male default for a stranger they were speaking to on a feminist site.
I suggest you ban yourself.
Robert, that’s an interesting article.
What it says, for those who didn’t click through, is that Palin never registered as anything but a Republican; but two different AIP officials remember her as being a member of the party, rather than just a town mayor shaking hands with some out-of-town visitors. It’s certainly possible for someone to be actively involved with and supporting a party without actually changing their voter registration card (happens with Green party folks fairly often).
Given this new information, it seems that either Palin — who we already know is a liar, both in troopergate and in her false claim to have said “no thanks” to Federal aid for the “bridge to nowhere” — is bending the truth, or that the AIP folks — who seem likely to be political cranks — are bending the truth.
Since both claims come from unreliable sources, I think the thing to do is to give Palin the benefit of the doubt in this case, unless new evidence comes down the pike. So starting right now, I’ll stop using AIP as a point against McCain/Palin.
Sorry about that, Thene. For some reason I think of “Thene” as being a male name, but I’ll try to remember that it’s not.
Was I the one that criticized the earlier mistake you’re referring to? I don’t remember doing so.
Myca said, “John McCain has been playing cutesy games impugning Obama’s patriotism…”
And this crap started with Hillary Clinton.
… Palin never registered as anything but a Republican; but two different AIP officials remember her as being a member of the party, rather than just a town mayor shaking hands with some out-of-town visitors.
Yeah, the AIP officials variously state it was at the ’94 or the ’96 convention. If either of them are telling the truth, Palin is lying about it being in her capacity as mayor. It’s also suspicious that a high-up in the AIP was a major force in her campaign for governor (if that is true). I’ll wait another couple of days to see if there are any reliable sources before deciding on what her deal (or not) w/ the AIP is.
In any case, I really think that the misuse of governmental power & the lies to cover it up & the investigating the (ongoing) investigation of her actions is a much, much bigger issue.
All of which pales in comparison to the McCain campaign not thoroughly vetting her before announcing her as his VP candidate. That’s just scary.
Curse your vile reasonableness!
I thought Thene was female, whether because I inferred it from her commenting style/content or because I saw that earlier discussion I don’t recall. In my head I think of her as a Thene, or Athene, by which I mean no disrespect, I just find it a handy mnemonic.
I’m not really inclined to go after Palin, except maybe for lying about bridges and earmarks and possibly Troopergate, although if Wooten is the 24-carat jerk he appears to be that last one may fizzle; but I really want to see McCain called to account for his laughably bad judgment in picking someone he knew next to nothing about and didn’t vet.
CBS is reporting that the person it refers to as “the main source” for the AIP story is “backing off his earlier claims.” Apparently Mr. Palin was a member of the AIP for a few years, though.
Amp said: “joining a political party is an endorsement of that party.”
The counter-example that leaps immediately to mind is Bob Casey, pro-life Democrat. Ah, and Joe Lieberman. And presumably there are examples running the other way (Olympia Snowe? The Chafees?). A political party can cover a lot of ground, and I think it’s a stretch to suggest that every member of a party should be deemed to agree with every plank of that party’s platform.
Oh, and certainly I think the same is true as to churches.
Tom, this is rather a moot point now, since it appears that Palin wasn’t in the party after all. (Unless new evidence turns up, etc.)
However, I didn’t say that joining a party is an endorsement of “every plank of that party’s platform.” I said it was an endorsement of the party itself.
In the case of AIP, unlike the Democrats or the Republicans, there does seem to be a single signature issue that the party is mostly about — hence the name of the party. There are some pro-choice Republicans, but I doubt many pro-choicers join the Right To Life Party.
O.K., Amp, that’s actually true. I guess what’s going on here is that I feel a distinction that I didn’t make clear. Up to this point I didn’t have any doubts that Sen. Obama’s religious convictions were sincere. Now I do. And that goes way deeper for me than politics. When I voted for Obama for U.S. Senator I saw a bright up-and-coming young man who spoke very well. While he was left of center, he wasn’t so far off that I couldn’t support him, especially considering his opposition in that campaign and the absolute mess that is the Illinois Reflublicans. Once the Presidential campaign started up and I became more familiar with how he had bought into the way things are done in Chicago I was displeased but not too surprised. Various politicians have “bought into the system” by rationalizing that they’ll accommodate certain evil things to get certain good things done. My questions on his character up to this point have been based on his willingness to make those accommodations and on what amount of good he’s been able to trade them for. From what I can see, the good has mostly been his ability to get and stay elected, not from what he’s done to make changes in the system since he’s been in it.
But choosing one’s church on the basis of the political connections one can make there is a bit too calculating for me. What church I go to means something completely different to me than that. I don’t know who else here goes to church on a regular basis and what their religion means to them (not exactly something that’s quantifiable), so I’m not sure that many people will understand.
While it’s true that I don’t go to church — when I practice religion, and even that not very often, I do it alone — I don’t know that this is so bad. If you sell life insurance, you join a church, you get involved in committees, outreach work, whatever, you meet people who may eventually become your prospects. As long as you work in an ethical way, your fellow parishioners legitimately need life insurance, this can be a win-win.
Likewise, you’re likely to choose a church that agrees with your general outlook on what a church should do: if you’re into helping the homeless, you’ll pick a church that is too.
So if you’re 1) in the business of politics 2) looking to pursue certain social goals both politically and through your church, it would make sense to want to make connections (in the sense of “I connected really well with him/her” as well as in the more common sense) that way.