You know what McCain and Palin have been up to this week, don’t you. Until some intervenor(s) slapped John McCain upside the head hard enough to make his ears ring, he, Palin, their ad-makers, and their henchman Fox News have been inciting domestic terrorism.
I doubt very much that it all stops now, despite McCain’s shamefaced new rhetoric yesterday. Even if all the above suddenly straighten up — even if they sincerely, deeply apologize and issue repeated mea culpas (which they won’t) — even if they keep begging their followers to calm down now (which they may, and may have to) — what their speeches have called up in this country, especially over this past week, will not be stilled.
The crazies they’ve been stoking never have calmed down and indeed cannot. What sane people seek out, that thing aggrieves them. Mix grievance with craziness, you end up with terrorism (see Oklahoma City, Atlanta Olympics). Dana Blankenhorn has written a post about these people, “the Haties,” and how they got that way. I hope you’ll read it because if, as I fear, he’s right about their “black terror” (not a racial term) being the great threat of our time, we’ll hear more from them soon — and more than once over the next eight years.
Concluding, Dana asks,
… What percentage of a nation must consist of terrorist sympathizers in order for civilization to be destroyed? We are about to find out. We know that if 1% of us insist on doing cocaine it’s a market that is tough to defeat. We know that if 10% of us insist on using marijuana that it’s tougher.
Any political force that becomes an insurgency can do enormous damage, and force draconian responses. The Bush Administration, in creating our new extra-Constitutional laws and procedures, acted against a handful, maybe less than a handful. It’s very possible that the Obama Administration will find itself facing a far more substantial threat in “black” terror, one requiring the use of all the Bush-era authories, and more, to really confront.
You need to know that. The Haties will not go as quietly as the Weather Underground did. There are millions of them. They are embedded deep inside our government, and in our history. They are a distraction from the real work of our time. They are the alligators in the swamp.
But we have to fight them. That is what democracy requires of us. Those who refuse to accept our system, and its results, cannot be tolerated.
The Haties were there, seething, before McCain-Palin called out to them. But having just received a strong message of solidarity from the leaders of a major political party, they now feel new validation. I very much fear that the McVeigh/Rudolph-style terrorists with whom they’ll sympathize will try hard to cost America deeply. They may succeed, and if they do and live to be tried, McCain and Palin should be their co-defendants.
The hate is on the surface, not below. I was with an otherwise very respectable realtor in Florida yesterday and Obama came up and he went off like a Roman candle. After offering me a copy of Obama Nation and after calling Obama every name in the book (socialist, communist, terrorist, muslim, etc.), he said he wouldn’t vote for Obama even if someone was threatening to shoot his wife and children unless he did.
Then the pertinent part — he stated matter of factly that if Obama is elected there is going to be a revolution. Obviously he is online with a lot of similar thinking terrorists. It was actually quite blood chilling.
Definitely chilling, IAT. This guy sounds like a Florida realtor I know. Always hoped there weren’t a lot more where he comes from, but I know that’s wrong.
A reporter, can’t remember the pub or her name-Anna Marie??, who has been following the McCain campaign, was a guest on the Maddow show last night. She reported that she and her colleagues have noticed, while all rallies have their share of “crazies”-after all that’s what crazies do, go to rallies- the McCain-Palin rallies are now made up predominantly of crazies.
Seems like they have found a home.
Anna Marie Cox. She writes for Time Magazine on their blog and used to be the blogger Wonkette.
Ooookeeeedoooookeeeee. Exactly what emotions do you think most of you here have been exhibiting the last few months about Bush, Chaney, McCain, and especially, of late, Palin? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Time for a reality check here.
Thanks, NMC 4, for filling in where my memory left off.
Don’t forget that they booed McCain at his own rally when he suggested that Senator Obama might just be “a decent man” with whom he shared philosophical differences. McCain and Sarah are about to live and die, politically, by what Haldeman said to John Dean: “Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it’s hard to get back in.”
afotl: Are you saying that because we’ve said some “bad” things about Bushco, McCain & Palin that we’re being hypocrites to object to these hate filled, fear-mongering tactics?
What’s been said here in objection to the that trifecta is as close to what’s happening on the McCain-Palin campaign as the Hatfields and McCoys.
afotl:
i’ve never heard “traitor, treason, kill him etc” ever come out of the mouth of an obama supporter.
i certainly don’t hate mccain – i admire him for a lot of things – just as barrack has said at every opportunity – the exact opposite of what mccain has been doing til he apparently got scared of what he has created yesterday.
GG, what I am saying is that if strong dissenting views, even “mad as hell and I’m not taking it anymore” type opinions, as considered “hate”, then many here are guilty of the same.
And this statement by “Dana” is preposterous:
” You need to know that. The Haties will not go as quietly as the Weather Underground did. There are millions of them. They are embedded deep inside our government, and in our history. ”
“Millions”?? Equivalent to the actions of Ayers and his group?? That is laughable.
And then the attempt to use stong dissent as a basis to label one a domestic “terrorist” and as legitimate support for Obama to continue and perhaps even take a step further the “Bush policies” of fighting terror so castigated here as long as I have been around, is mind boggling:
“The Bush Administration, in creating our new extra-Constitutional laws and procedures, acted against a handful, maybe less than a handful. It’s very possible that the Obama Administration will find itself facing a far more substantial threat in "black" terror, one requiring the use of all the Bush-era authories, and more, to really confront.”
Surely, those of you here would strongly object to Obama carrying out those same “Bush policies” no matter the asserted reasons?? OR, is it now ok for Obama to do what Bush did and even more?
IAT, you obviously haven’t been paying much attention.
Bush and Chaney have been characterized just as bad or worse here on this site. Ditto McCain and Palin.
No matter who wins —McCain or Obama — there is no need for any panic filled running through the streets by anyone. The sky will not fall. And the overexaggerations from both extremes, while laughable, are no reason to toss the first amendment out and start labeling them as “terrorists”. People have a right to express strong dissenting viewpoints in this country, even to be mad as hell. So long as they don’t resort to violence, such people are not “terrorists”.
Many liberals cannot bring themselves to call the folks who ARE trying to kill us and have killed, as “terrorists”. And now, after some conservatives with strong opinions blow off a little steam, they start throwing the word around pretty cavalierly. A little reason, logic, and common sense can carry one a long way in this crazy world.
afotl, *strong dissenting views* is what political discourse is made of and do not equal hate. You make my point exactly and invalidate your own.
Ch
aeneyWhat we have here (@1) is an anecdote about a conservative sympathizing with revolution if Obama is elected. Also anecdotally, ma fella libruls are prone to threatening to leave the country if McCain is elected.
Not at all GG.
I was simply making the point that if the complained of speech from those angry conservatives was “hate”, then so has been much of the discourse here for several months. Simple logic. And even anger, or “hate” does not equate to “terrorism”. I think the latter requires an overt violent act.
With regard to my other points in response to that irrational rant by “Dana”, all we have here are crickets chirping.
“Many liberals cannot bring themselves to call the folks who ARE trying to kill us and have killed, as "terrorists". And now, after some conservatives with strong opinions blow off a little steam, they start throwing the word around pretty cavalierly. A little reason, logic, and common sense can carry one a long way in this crazy world.”
Your last sentence is indeed true.
AFOTL:
A couple things–
The last month of this campaign has been marked by something different in kind in several ways: National candidates of a major party stirring up very strong anger (anger which I will admit exists on both sides), on purpose, as a calculated campaign move. I don’t think you can point to anyone who ran as a president on the Democratic ticket who has done anything comparable. You’d have to go to backbenchers in Congress at the most to find plays to this sort of visceral anger. They are playing on specific bigotries and fears of a major part of their “base” and it’s playing with fire. Second, the nature of the fire they are playing with is different than (most of) the angry stuff from the left. The calls from the left for impeachment were not remotely incitements to riot. You can argue about whether there were grounds for impeachment, but not that there was no basis at all for such a call– surely you would concede that there was a real question whether the president had the power to override the Geneva Conventions and commit what many thought to be war crimes. I have thought all along there was no political will for impeachment, and thought the calls for same were wasted breath, but that’s a different question (and I’ll acknowledge that there are people of good will who think there was no illegal conduct).
I’m getting side-tracked. The point is that there were no national figures inciting this kind of hatred on the Democratic side. Secondly, and here you may just disagree with me, although on this point I honestly don’t think there’s a good faith “other side”: The McCain campaign has been playing with bigotry in a pretty direct way, pushing the stuff of “Southern Strategy” right up to inarguable bigotry. They want to make it clear that he’s not “one of us” and are pumping up the fears of people who think Obama is some sort of planted secret Muslim terrorist (look at the campaigns web ad “The One” and tell me that’s not part of such an effort, and listen to the rhetoric at rallies).
This is the sort of stuff that Ross Barnett and George Wallace stirred up. Ross Barnett didn’t turn Neshoba County over to the klan, but the way he spoke in public helped foster the idea of violent resistance. There was blood on his hands. Nothing like that has happened in this context, but watching these folks at the rallies shows to me the same kind of dangers.
And McCain yesterday did show strong signs of turning away from it. I have two reactions, different from Lotus’s. I’ve watched the video over and over and think that there’s a real chance that he finally was seeing he’d gone too far with this. I think part of his reaction may be genuine, and, watching it am willing to credit that. I think the other part is that his campaign probably has seen that this is finally destroying them– their internal polls must be showing them that this appeal to a narrow band of their voters who are seething with rage is going to send some of their natural voters to the other side (Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama!?) and cause some to stay at home. My bet is that McCain’s people decided they needed to pull back from this. And McCain was ready and willing to do so.
I can’t imagine anything that will change between now and November 4th that will alter the current dynamic, and so it’s looking like McCain is toast. But if he’d kept on the tack he picked this week, it would only have been worse for him.
NMC @ 17: Amen. Amen. Amen. I wish I could have said it as cogently. I worry that the nation may have forgotten the consequences of rabble speech by the likes of Barnett, Wallace, Faubus and the other riffraff who passed for Southern leaders. Their kind of “leadership” ratifies the basest words and actions of The Great Unwashed. People need to reread the history of America in the 50′s—70′s and Europe in the 20′s and 30′s. The past truly is prologue.
I would also point out that the people yelling “traitor” and “kill him” are not conservatives. Labeling them conservatives implies some rational thought processes for which conservatives have historically been noted. These people are just ignorant, racist and jingoistic. They respond to calls for blind passion, not rationality. True conservatives are as disgusted, and disturbed, by them as any liberal; perhaps more so, since liberalism holds as a tenet that they only require enlightenment to change their views, while conservatism views them as irredeemable.
I’m sorry NMC, but I could not disagree more.
Obama’s past association with Ayers, ACORN, Wright/Trinity Church, and that convicted felon who he bought his house/property from, are legitimate topics pertaining to a potential future president’s judgment. In fact, all of these topics (except for maybe ACORN) were previously brought up by Clinton during the primary. For whatever reasons, the news media pretty much glossed over all of them and accepted what I thought were some pretty lame explanations from Obama. Any other candidate, not black, would have been highly scrutinized over these past associations. But, this vetting process by the media was simply not done for whatever reasons.
Until the recent economic crisis, the McCain campaign probably thought, due to the tight race, that it did not need to go in this direction. But, the economic crisis has hurt McCain moreso than Obama, even though, IMO, the democrats in Congress have more blood on their hands than anyone as to the cause of this mess. And many conservatives have been frustrated by McCain’s apparent unwillingness, until recently, to get more aggressive in this campaign and inform more of the electorate of the history of this man running for president on the other side. Just as Obama and other high level dems have brought up the Keating matter with McCain, these types of things are fair game in politics.
And there is absolutely nothing racist about it. ACORN is central to and relevant to the mortgage loan situation that has triggered the recent economic crisis, and as demonstrated recently, is engaged in widespread voter registration fraud. Obama’s campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are as well. Ayers is white. Obama did indeed have way more of an association with Ayers than just as neighbors —the suggestion that such was all there was to it was simply a lie. That convicted felon from Chicago, who Obama engaged in the shady land deal with, was white. And like Ayers, Obama used him to advance his political career. The church that Obama attended for over 20 years was indeed a predominately “black” church, but the whacked out beliefs of its pastor/founder are certainly fair game, especially when Obama himself claimed Wright to have been his spiritual mentor and someone he sought advice from early in his political career. All of you here seemed to agree that Palin’s religious beliefs were relevant to the race —so, why aren’t Obama’s? Clearly, Obama used Wright and the Trinity Church to advance his political career, and then threw them under the bus when the association became a political liability — that should have been vetted more. And with respect to Obama himself, the man is half-caucasion, part african, and part arab —based upon his ancestry as outlined in his own books. There is nothing about this that is an issue in this campaign — certainly nothing that has been brought up by McCain/Palin. What is at issue are Obama’s positions on issues of key importance to the country, and his past judgement and fitness to be president — as with ANY past candidate for president.
Whether one agrees with the strategy of “going negative” or not, that is one matter. To play this race card in response is quite another —its a cheap shot, and disingenuous. IF the negative campaigning by McCain is so beneficial to Obama, then it would seem that the Obama camp should be happy about it.
Frankly, I see little difference between the angry liberal democrats, and the angry right wing conservatives. They are all angry. And they represent the fringe. And your generalizations about that are as valid as some I could make from the other end of the political spectrum —the type that if I did would drive you nutts and have lotus screaming for my head on a platter. So, I won’t go there. LOL.
McCain/Palin are no more responsible for this anger than the Clintons —actually Clinton’s team DID in fact make the types of racial based arguments about Obama that you complain about, and which the McCain camp has not done.
And none of you have addressed my other questions about this ridiculous rant by “Dana” posted here for comment.
afotl 5, how ludicrous. The exasperation and disgust you see expressed here for BushCo/McCain-Palin has never once included wishes for their physical harm — a bannable offense on this blog (I refer you to the About page).
The difference between ours and the McCain-Palin goons’ disgust is that ours is based on — as you say — repeated reality checks: the actual things Bush, McCain, Palin, et al. have done and said, not some fever-dreams based on who they are.
The motivations of people who criticize your heroes’ actual behavior, as opposed to the imagination-based motivations of McCain-Palin’s rabid screamers of “Kill him!” and “Sit down, boy” — well, they’re so different in both degree and kind that your attempt to make them identical is worse than ridiculous. It’s dishonest.
Over time, you’ve trained us to expect this kind of muddling in your pronouncements — a familiarity that’s failed to endear.
Ok, I’ll address it Dana: I thought the quote you pulled from the blog post Lotus quoted by Dana was asinine. And the entire post on Dana’s blog is full of incoherent paranioa that makes an astonishing hash of history (“Taking out Hitler and Tojo took everything we had. We had to fight as dirty as the enemy.” Uh, I think not. Please tell me what we did comparable to, say, the SS treatment of resistance fighters. And the post spouts some ahistorical nonsense about southern history to boot).
So there. I had only glanced at the quote above long enough to know it wouldn’t tell me anything that would make it worth reading (bad writing that makes it a near certainty that there’s bad thinking behind it), and now I’ve read a long post on the man’s blog, wasting 10 minutes of my time and then however much long of your time it took you to read these two paragraphs. You feel better?
And you’re cherry picking the McCain campaign’s behavior in the weeks since the Republican convention in a big way, ignoring much of the style and substance of these rallies and the way they drum up hate. You’re seeing what you want to see about them. I may write more about this later, although for now I’ll accept as mine John Lewis’s comments about all this
The irritation level of this comment has far more to do with my reaction to the Dana blog post than your comment, btw.
“The irritation level of this comment has far more to do with my reaction to the Dana blog post than your comment, btw.”
I would hope so. LOL.
“The exasperation and disgust you see expressed here for BushCo/McCain-Palin has never once included wishes for their physical harm — a bannable offense on this blog (I refer you to the About page). ”
Now, who is “cherry picking”……or nitpicking.
afotl, with all due respect, you are living in an alternate universe. Your comments don’t even have internal coherence, and all you are doing is repeating right-wing talking points, all of which have been disproved multiple times – but you’re not interested in that.
ACORN is a legitimate organization that has never committed voter fraud. Furthermore, low-income and minority mortgages, and Freddie and Fannie, are not the cause of the subprime mortgage mess.
Obama’s “connection” with Ayers is virtually nonexistent; Ayers is now a respectable academic with widespread Republican support. Are all the GOP members who are far more closely associated with Ayers than Obama is radicals?
As for Reverend Wright, yes, he’s made some intemperate remarks about the United States. Since you’re fond of pointing out racial differences, let me point out that many white pastors – Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell prominent among them – have said far worse things about the United States. No one has criticized them for it, nor suggested that their congregations should denounce them. Certainly, no one has said anything to criticize the many politicians, John McCain included, who have associated with them and sought their political support.
As for Obama’s religious beliefs vs. Sarah Palin’s, Obama believes in the separation of church and state. Sarah Palin does not. This makes her religious beliefs directly relevant to how she conducts herself as an elected official.
There was nothing shady about the land deal; it’s been reported multiple times that there simply isn’t anything improper about it, despite your wishes to the contrary. And Obama is not “part arab” [sic], and Obama’s books do not say that he is. This is simply false.
The facts, afotl, which you obviously find inconvenient, are that Hillary Clinton’s campaign tried to smear Obama in order to win the primary. All of these allegations, and more, were investigated – exhaustively so, contrary to your claims – and found to be groundless. For you to say that Obama has not been vetted is the equivalent of saying that John McCain never talks about being a POW – you can only miss it by trying hard to overlook it. He’s been vetted *more* than everyone else; he’s had to meet *higher* standards than other candidates, precisely because there are people like you out there buying into the lies about him instead of exercising your brains.
I don’t expect you to acknowledge any of this; you’ve clearly got your mind made up, and the facts are not going to sway you. But for the record, I’ve presented you with the evidence that you’re now going to disregard.
Standing O for neffable! That’s alotta facts to turn a blind eye to, afotl, but I’m betting you’re up to it.
just as a couple of asides (I don’t have time for more detail or at this point for links):
Lotus has made a large point of banning people of all stripes who talk in terms of violent reaction. I don’t think her citing that was cherry picking.
Acorn was sued in Florida for illegal activity involving voter registration in 2004. Not only did they win the suit, they won a libel verdict against the plaintiff….
Afotl, I have always respected your opinion, but disagreed with you. These comments, however, prove an inability to see. I don’t care whether someone is right or left. These recent actions of McCain’s are worthy of disdain. I have chuckled at your defense of Sarah Palin the nincompoop the last few weeks, but this is too much. You are a smart person. Get smart.
And here’s the real blow up to the guilt by association argument: McCain has been thick as thieves with Scruggs, legitimately good pals and working partners. Does that testify to his judgment?
If McCain really wants to try to find the high road again he needs to dismiss the Hatie-Klan-McVeigh-Rudolph “base” of the GOP (including Trent Lott’s friends at the spin offs of the old White Citizens’ Council) and then dismiss his running mate. And Scruggs, if he hasn’t done so already (but remember Scruggs is still sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars and that’s a hard bridge for a politician to burn).
ACORN is CURRENTLY under federal investigation for voter registration fraud, with reports of such widespread fraud related to it all over the country. ACORN is also part of the mortgage crisis scandal, as it engaged in much strong arming against banks and financial institutions to make risky loans to people who could not afford them. That is NOT compassion. It IS insanity. Obama served as an attorney for this organization and worked closely with it while doing his community organizing.
Describing Obama’s past relationship with Ayers as “virtually nonexistent” is laughable, especially in light of the increasingly candid admissions from his camp just this past week to the contrary. And for Obama to have previously asserted that he did not know the history about Ayers (he has now corrected this misrepresentation) is a joke — if he didn’t, he is too stupid to be president. Ayers, as founder of the infamous Weathermen, was responsible for many bombings, including the Pentagon and US Capitol. Obama and Michelle served on the faculty at the University of Illinois-Chicago with Ayers, Obama and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, one of Obama’s early campaign launch fundraisers was held in Ayers living room, they live in the same neighborhood, and according to Obama’s camp, are “friendly”. Very interesting choice of “friends” I would have to say. Kind of fits right in with the black-liberation theology of the Trinity Church (God Damn America division, chikin’ roostin’ chapter).
As for the Rev. Wright’s “intemperate remarks”, that is certainly a rug sweeping way to characterize it. LOL. If I (or most other citizens) had heard any of those “remarks” from the pulpit of my church (govt. intentionally spreading AIDS, blaming 9/11 on the US, “God Damn America”, etc.), I would have been running for the door and finding a new church to attend. And these were just a handful of such “remarks”, and don’t even touch the black-liberation theology preached by Wright from the pulpit every day —it IS the theology of the Trinity United Church of Christ, and stems from James Cone’s 1969 book “Black Theology and Black Power”, which is heavily Marxist influenced. Calling this church a “christian” church is a stretch. Saying that this church separates church and state is a farce —it should have its tax exempt status revoked.
Rezko, a Chicago political operative (sort of like Patterson in MS, a behind the scenes “fixzer”), now a convicted felon, helped Obama buy land at $300,000 below market value —even Obama conceded his actions were “boneheaded”. And that apparently was good enough for all, with no further vetting necessary. Obama has spoken. Rezco also did a lot of fund raising for Obama’s political career, even while he was under federal investigation that ultimately resulted in his recent conviction on 16 felony counts. (Rezco has now decided to cooperate with the feds and spill what he knows —his sentencing was recently postponed due to this cooperation).
While some of you with blinders on may see nothing at all wrong with any of this –and that is your right — I see plenty that gives me great pause about his judgement. And I don’t think that I am the one living in the “alternative universe”.
UPDATEd: This just in. David Axelrod, the head of the Obama campaign, said this Sunday morning to Chris Wallace that Obama did know who Ayers was but continued to be friends with him anyway because he thought he was rehabilitated. The Obama camp story seems to change everyday re this matter. LOL. And there is nothing here? Yeah, right.
It really seems to me that all this ACORN stuff is a convenient villain du jour. I had some predatory lending cases a few years ago. I can assure you that ACORN wasn’t pressing those banks to make those subprime loans. They were making them because they made a shitload of upfront fee money doing it, then they sold them to be securitized and they became somebody else’s problem.
I’ve had a similar experience of subprime lending, rogerwilco.
And if you follow through exactly what is happening with ACORN, it’s more obvious its a convenient villian. ACORN offers folks a bounty to go out and produce registration cards. In most states, anyone doing that is required to turn over all registrations to the state (it’s a crime not to, and there have been investigations where Republican-oriented groups were caught discarding Democratic registrations). Because of the bounty-system– a stupid one– they’d get in piles of bogus registrations. After hassle back and forth, in some areas they are identifying problem registrations to the registrars.
So what happens? If someone fills in a card for “Mickey Mouse,” you think Mickey Mouse walks in and votes? Of course not. This is a problem, but it isn’t producing “voting fraud” or bogus votes.
Which leads to the question of Obama’s role as a lawyer in the mid-90s. He represented a group, one of which was ACORN, in a lawsuit over access to the polls that included disability issues. The justice dept was on the same side as Obama, and his side won the suit. So there’s that.
He also earlier than that– which makes it a full decade before this voter registration stuff of the last few years– did a two hour training session for ACORN.
Finally, his campaign paid some money to an ACORN-affiliated group that related to a campaign event. That’s the sum of it.
I’m not buying AFOTL’s charge in three distinct ways, and have spent some time poking around the internet and reading to confirm my impression. First, ACORN is not evil. Stumblebums at times, like many community organizing groups, but not evil. Every political campaign has been associated with the likes, and many worse. They aren’t corrupting the election process. Second, Obama’s connections with ACORN are relatively tenuous.
A raid by a partisan state actor on ACORN offices in Nevada doesn’t convince me. Nor does efforts to have them prosecuted in 2004, particularly when you had a US Atty refuse to prosecute and get fired in New Mexico.
So AFOTL, you’ve not convinced me of anything. This isn’t remotely like the pervasive national pattern of slanderous campaign literature emanating from the McCain campaign.
I have actually written several times about the Haties, and I have a new post about them today. http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2008/11/fighting-the-ha.html
Hey and welcome to folo, Dana. I’ll be right over to check that out.
Good luck with “The War on Oil” Dana, I didn’t expect you to have a beard, for some reason.