Phew! That reeked!
What I suppose it may come down to is this:
If the American people can be swayed by fear, bitterness, hatred, division, demonization, half-truths and outright lies, then the Republicans have a chance at the White House.
IF, on the other hand, the People are truly tired of the sort of bile-filled ugliness demonstrated in last night's hate-fest by the Grand Old Potty, then Obama will be our next president.
I'm relatively convinced of the latter, and pray that it's not the former.
28 comments:
If one individual stood out as deserving of an Oscar for Hatemonger/Fearmonger of the Year award, I'd have to nominate Mitt Romney. Of course, I couldn't sit through the whole set of speeches, but I heard a good bit and his was especially hateful, seems to me.
That man does not need to be anywhere near the White House.
Well, we've certainly seen contrasts.
Snide comments, insults, bitter condescension, and snottiness from the Republicans vs. raising the bar from the Democrats.
And where were the specifics? So we know Sarah Palin can throw an elbow, but how exactly does that help autoworkers here in Michigan?
I find it endlessly interesting that we could both sit through listening to the same set of speeches and you can be impressed and I could be nauseated by its ugliness and hatefulness.... At least that's what I felt about the Democratic Convention.
We're a strange species.
It's like we both live in a Lewis Carroll caricature; both of us staring back at each other through a looking glass and seeing each other's world as a bizarrely twisted realm...
I'm with Alan... all I heard last week in Denver were "Snide comments, insults, bitter condescension, and snottiness from the Democrats."
Oh, and raising the bar from Republicans THIS week.
I had posted that first paragraph, roughly, at Eric's place and he's responding here, fyi.
So, Eric, I can point to specific comments and statements that I found ugly and divisive and simply wrong.
For instance, Romney's shrill repeated demonization of "LIBERALS!!!" How he contrasted the Republicans with those hated liberals saying ""We will never allow America to retreat in the face of evil extremism," and implying that liberals would.
He went on to blast "liberal Washington," saying McCain is a "prescription for every American who wants change in Washington."
And I wonder, "How does someone who represents more of the same that we've had the last eight years represent change??" It doesn't even make sense. People DON'T like Bush policy and that's what we want change from, how does McCain then represent change?
Or like the repeated call for offshore drilling, implying that they were doing something about lowering gas prices and ending dependency on foreign oil. Offshore drilling does not accomplish either of those in any significant way.
And I could go on and on. Here's a link to a site that is pointing out many of the falsehoods in some of the speeches last night.
So, I can point to some specific instances of half truths and demonization that I found repulsive in this meeting. What can you specifically point to that support your charge of "Snide comments, insults, bitter condescension, and snottiness from the Democrats"?
"...bile-filled ugliness demonstrated in last night's hate-fest by the Grand Old Potty, then Obama will be our next president."
Indeed. Looks like bile is not exclusively Republican.
It's entirely possible that one could have a neighbor that shat all upon his yard. Pointing out the bile would not be the same as joining him.
Folks must have missed the endless encomiums last week in Denver that honored McCain's record, his love and service to the country, and his commitment. We heard that McCain does indeed care about the country, but that he's wrong, and that he hasn't learned from his experiences the lessons that are needed to move us forward. And we certainly heard that, even though we disagree, Democrats won't be questioning the patriotism of Republicans. Yet, what we saw last night from the Republicans on the other hand, was continued snide comments about Obama's work as a community organizer, for example. (So much for a thousand points of light...I guess volunteerism isn't all that important to Republicans any more.) Questioning Obama's commitment, more of the BS "messiah/flag pin" crap, etc. I'm not surprised some folks like that sort of thing, as it reads like their own blogs. But I wouldn't elect them as VP either. LOL
What we didn't get were specifics last night. Obama's speech contained pages and pages of specifics, and it certainly raised the bar in these debates. Palin? Not so much. Maybe McCain will do that tonight. How is the next 4 years under a McCain administration going to differ from the last 8 under George Bush? Didn't hear that either. We still don't know what specific parts of Palin's vast executive experience will be key to her being the VP. We didn't hear about why she wants to ban books, why she's anti-science, why she klings to abstinence only education -- even though it obviously doesn't work, why she supported the bridge to nowhere, why she raised taxes in Alaska, etc.
But she can certainly give the classic VP attack-dog speech off a teleprompter, a speech which the McCain camp acknowledges was written even before they picked her. OK. Fine. So could any decent actor or public speaker. Now it's time to see if she can campaign. If she can talk up her vast executive experience while ignoring the fact that, based on that argument, she has more experience than the head of her own ticket!! (A very odd argument, indeed.) If nothing else, this will, as I've been saying all along, continue to be an interesting race. If we can get beyond snotty comments about flag pins.
If the American people can be swayed by fear, bitterness, hatred, division, demonization, half-truths and outright lies
If? Is there any doubt?
Thank God, that as an alternative to the "bile-filled ugliness". We get anarchists destroying private and public property, terrorists with molotov cocktails, "peace demonstrators" who's language is characterized as "hateful and vile", hundreds of arrests, all courtesy of Dans homies. Hopefully they'll leave soon. As I post, more "peaceful protestors" are violating their permits.
Oh and lets not forget we also get RNC delegates volunteering to build homes for low income families.
"Thank God, that as an alternative to the "bile-filled ugliness". We get anarchists destroying private and public property, terrorists with molotov cocktails, "peace demonstrators" who's language is characterized as "hateful and vile", hundreds of arrests, all courtesy of Dans homies. Hopefully they'll leave soon. As I post, more "peaceful protestors" are violating their permits."
And which of those are running for President and Vice-President? Oh, right. None of them.
"Oh and lets not forget we also get RNC delegates volunteering to build homes for low income families."
Yeah, because Democrats would never do something like that.
Oh wait. Jimmy Carter. Habitat for Humanity. 'Nuff said.
Thank you for playing, enjoy the Rice-a-roni! ROFL
So now associations are back on the table.
When will you retract your posts defending BHO from his associations with Rev. Wright?
What did she say about Obama/Biden that is not true?
Edwin:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
Enjoy.
I, too, came away wondering what, exactly, the Republicans were offering as a coherent, substantive reason to vote for them or their standard bearer. Where was the discussion even of tax cuts and the possible benefits of them? What of No Child Left Behind? I honestly didn't hear any talk of specifics.
And, yes, there was quite a lot of nastiness. And pretty much every factual statement Sarah Palin made in her speech is demonstrably false. The fact-checkers are catching up with her, even if the press isn't allowed to ask her questions.
As for Mitt Romney, I think he offered the best sight of the entire convention, the former Governor of Massachusetts denouncing "eastern elitists". If it weren't so sad, I'd still be laughing.
OK, so bile filled ugliness, destruction of property, and terrorism, are good with you guys as long as it is only the supporters of the candidates, not the candidates themselves.
For the record, I never said or implied that democrats would/do not volunteer for charitable causes. I am simply making the point that for this time period in this particular city, there is s significant contrast between what some McCain supportes are doing with their time as opposed to some Obama supporters. If you inferred something else I can't help you.
Awesome, you have one democrat who is a spokesperson for HFH. nuf said. Really???????
Thank you for playing.
BTW, couldn't we get one teensy tiny bit of condemnation for the miscreant Obama suppoters who have made the last week so entertaining? Just one?
so bile filled ugliness, destruction of property, and terrorism, are good with you guys as long as it is only the supporters of the candidates, not the candidates themselves.
Craig, I'd ask you nicely to behave here, please. No one has said the first word of support for acts of violence. It goes without saying. It is obvious that those folk are misbehaving and no one here has spoke in their support.
What IS wrong is to imply such support when it hasn't been offered. That is a way of slandering people with whom you disagree and slander is wrong, I'd hope you would agree.
It is exactly that sort of bile-filled innuendo that I am condemning, wherever it is coming from. In this case, from you.
Behave, please. Thanks.
Dan, I realize this is your blog, but you must understand. That is how Republicans behave. They lie, they slander, they insist on guilt by association and innuendo (Obama's a member of the Weather Underground!). It is all straw arguments that are meaningless, meant to distract from the main point. If we get all bogged down defending against implication, we don't have time to actually do something positive.
It's a trick and a trap. Obviously, no one here defends violence. The best way to deal with this, IMHO, is to point out the irrelevance of the point as presented, and restate the original position without regard to the screeches from the right.
That is how Republicans behave. They lie, they slander, they insist on guilt by association and innuendo
Absolutely not true, Geoffrey. SOME Republicans behave as you describe - mainly those most closely tied to a particular mindset and with the least open minds. Just as some Democrats behave as such.
I know too many good Republican folk - folk who would not dream of behaving as you described - to think that it is endemic to one party.
Here in our little corner of the blogosphere, while we get too many naughty Republicans/conservatives, we also have folk like Chance and John who stop by here and don't engage in this sort of slander and innuendo.
It HAS become the MO of way too many of the Republicans in power and that is a shame, but I refuse to believe that it's ALL of them, or even a majority.
"BTW, couldn't we get one teensy tiny bit of condemnation for the miscreant Obama suppoters who have made the last week so entertaining? Just one?"
The violence was totally uncalled for and is a slap in the face to real peace activists.
How do you know they were Obama supporters anyway?
I read that the violence was attributed to Anarchists. I know a few Anarchists. They don't support Obama.
Dan, you are correct. When I used the word "Republican", I was speaking of the campaign operatives and candidates usually running for national office. Run-of-the-mill Republicans are no better and no worse that Democrats; Democratic candidates have been known to stretch the truth a tad in political campaigns. I came off sounding as if I was condemning all Republicans, making a sweeping generalization, and for that I apologize.
Dan,
For the record, I was responding to Alan who, instead of condemning the miscreants, offfers as "justification" the fact that the candidates themselves did not engage in the destructive behavior. My response to Alan was probably over the top, in an attempt at hyperbole (Which sometimes doesn't translate well on blog responses. I'm also one of those folks who believes that sarcasm got left out of the list of spiritual gifts, which also doesn't necessarily translate well), I probably should have used one of those little smiley face things to indicate the above. So, I apologize if my comment didn't come across in the spirit I intended. I'll try to do better in the future.
Thanks for defending gop's from GKS's broad brush shot.
As for Marty, I know that some were BHO supporters because the interviewed them. That said, the ones they interviewed were idiots.
My larger point, which I appearantly failed to make well, is twofold. First, nothing comparable to this was instigated by supporters of the gop in Denver. Second, if you were to get your information from the national news orginizations you would not have any idea of the nature and extent of what happened here.
Finally, I have never said or implied that this was done by anything but a minority of BHO supporters or anti gopers. I apologizet to anyone who made that inference. The problem is whether or not you (the respondents to this blog) want them they are associatingthemselves with you. So just as all prolifers get tarred with the extremists actions (even though those actions uniformly get condemned), and just as all those who oppose "gay marriage" get lumped in with the Phelps inbreds, so too (to some degree) are the "anarchist idiots" going to get lumped in with the less extreme dems/BHO supporters. It's not fair, I didn't do it, I feel your pain, but life sucks some time.
Again, I'm sorry for any confusion or misunderstanding.
"Second, if you were to get your information from the national news orginizations you would not have any idea of the nature and extent of what happened here."
Mind providing a link to an alternative news source so I can read "the nature and extent" for myself?
I heard a brief report on Pacifica radio, while driving, interviewing a law enforcement officer that arrested anarchists allegedly involved in the violence.
Also there are several reports on Democracy Now that I've not had a chance to watch.
"OK, so bile filled ugliness, destruction of property, and terrorism, are good with you guys as long as it is only the supporters of the candidates, not the candidates themselves."
ROFL. Yes Craig, that's exactly what we said. You are so perceptive! Thank god you're not interested in "fear, bitterness, hatred, division, demonization, half-truths and outright lies,"
Is that really the best you can do? Really? LOL
Then we get the "no, it was really just sarcasm" excuse, as an attempt to roll back your ridiculous comments when you're called on them. Nice.
"For the record, I was responding to Alan who, instead of condemning the miscreants, offfers as "justification" the fact that the candidates themselves did not engage in the destructive behavior."
Wow, your BS gets even better. Yes, I was "justifying" violence. Woo hoo! Yay violence and property destruction!
ROFL. Thanks for the laugh, Craig. Fortunately I think the country is getting past such silly rhetoric. Well, most of us have grown up, anyway. ;)
Shall we recall the thread of this conversation? Dan was talking about the words of Romney, Thompson, Giulliani, and Palin. You know, the actual people speaking for the RNC at the convention. To this, Craig compares them "anarchists [ie. Democrats] destroying private and public property, terrorists with molotov cocktails, "peace demonstrators" who's language is characterized as "hateful and vile", hundreds of arrests, all courtesy of Dans homies."
And then he says about such associations: "It's not fair, I didn't do it,"
Um. Yeah. Right.
Marty,
All I had to do was watch the local news and listen to local radio, no big secret there.
Alan,
I'm so glad I have you to tell me what my intentions are, it must be a burden, but thanks for bearing it. Not quite sure where your "fear, bitterness, hatred, division, demonization, half-truths and outright lies," comes in though. If you are implying that I am all of the above you could not be more wrong. Your comments did sound like you are feeling a little hatred though, lighten up.
For the record, my original point stands DNC no "anarchists" damaging personal property, RNC "anarchists" damaging personal property.
Of course we all know that no one in the democrat party would ever attack, mischaracterize, demonize, plagerize, spread "fear, bitterness, hatred, division, demonization, half-truths and outright lies,"
or do anything else the least bit unpleasant in any form of communication.
You are right about one thing It is not fair that your politicians gotthese strange bedfellows, and in fact I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I just watched the news, listened to the radio, and stayed away.
For the record, my original point stands DNC no "anarchists" damaging personal property, RNC "anarchists" damaging personal property.
So? The anarchists were wrong for targeting the RNC, but from their point of view, THAT was the right target. They have a problem with Republican policies, they think that Republican policies are dangerous and harmful and perhaps even evil.
So, I can understand from MY point of view disagreeing with their tactics for damage to property and tangling with the police. What I have a more difficult time is with those on the Right disagreeing with them.
Bush and his followers believe that IF there is a violent dangerous entity out there, you try to effect change as peacefully as possible.
BUT, according to the Bush camp, IF peaceful change is not possible, then you can engage in violence - even deadly violence; even deadly violence that has innocent collateral damage - to stop that evil. So, from the Bush camp point of view, these anarchists are behaving in a legitimate manner. If anything, because they're mostly attacking "things" not people (throwing bricks through windows, damaging vehicles), the anarchists are showing more restraint than the Bush camp in how they deal with perceived evil.
So, why would those in the Bush camp have a problem with the anarchists embracing the very tactics the Bushies believe in, too?
First Craig writes, "OK, so bile filled ugliness, destruction of property, and terrorism, are good with you guys as long as it is only the supporters of the candidates, not the candidates themselves."
and he writes, "Your comments did sound like you are feeling a little hatred though, lighten up."
Then he complains, "I'm so glad I have you to tell me what my intentions are, it must be a burden, but thanks for bearing it. "
LOL
Craig accuses us of supporting "bile filled ugliness, destruction of property, and terrorism" and then displays his amazing ability to read my mind as he accuses me of "hatred."
Well Craig, I'm so glad I have *you* to tell me what my intentions are, it must be a burden, but thanks for bearing it. ROFL.
Alan,
I'll let this be the end on my part. My exact words (which you quoted btw) were ""Your comments did sound like you are feeling a little hatred though, lighten up.""
Please re read the quote nowhere did I "accuse" you of anything. I pointed out that what you wrote could be interpreted as containing hatred. I merely suggested you nottake this so seriously. Further I (unlike you) were commenting on your words as they appear in this blog and as I read them. Nowhere, ever, (again unlike you) did I express, say, or imply that I had any insigght into your thoughts or "intentions" were.
Finally, as to these people being supporters of the democrat party. If they were not, why would the several members (DFL) or the DFL controlled St. Paul city council, be publicly pressuring the police to drop charges and let this go.
Dan,
My favorite "anarchist" quote/paraphrse went something like "we are against all heirarchies and anyone having power over anyone else". If your scenario was in fact correct why would they target only one convention. It seems as though both parties seek toestablish a heirarchy and to excercise control over others. These guys aren't anarchists they're a bunch of yahoo's who need a politically acceptable excuse for mayhem. The political concern is that they have attached themselves to the democrat parties coattails, whether you wantt hem or not.
I tried to be patient but I have to mention the double standard in your response to me, my apology, and Alan's "response" to my apology. It's your blog, and you set the rules, but could you try to be a bit more even handed.
I'm done with this thread.
" I merely suggested you nottake this so seriously. "
Yet again, Craig, you seem to think you know my intentions. Get over yourself.
Post a Comment