I'm not saying that Barack Obama is the Democratic party nominee (though he is). What I am saying is that it's time for the media to start shinning the light into the dark, sticky corner of conservatism in America - the GOP and John McCain. If you are down with Bush's 8 years in office morphing into 12 years, then you probably won't care about these things, but I do and I'm hoping most Americans (for a change) feel similarly.
First up - a couple of looks at Rod Parsley; John McCain's "spiritual" advisor. Please give me Reverend "God Damn America" Wright any day. (These are short).
From Right Wing Watch
From Brave New Films
Finally, on this cheerful note, we find out that Obama isn't going to take any of the usual GOP dirty tricks that most of the U.S. population is now at least aware of. He came out and said what we all know. John McCain is losing his mind! I love it. This will be so much fun once Hillary is officially out of the way.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
The General Election - Let's Get It ON!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Yeah but the difference is if CNN started playing that Motherjones clip on a loop, it would bring McCain even more support and votes.
"...it's time for the media to start shinning the light into the dark, sticky corner of conservatism in America..."
It's much more fun to watch the nice black man duke it out with the bitchy white woman. Old men like McCain are, well, boring.
On a practical level, it's a damn good thing for us heathen rights-lovers that CNN and their ilk are not showing clip after clip of Parsley. The American public loves what Parsley says. Airing his rants against homosexuality and Islam will get more votes for McCain, not fewer.
Hey, I just wrote exactly what Philly said, didn't I? Duh.
But OK, Evo, now you've heard it twice. Stop whining about wanting to hear more about Parsley.
I think the interview went very well. I also liked Cafferty's comments afterwards. I like that old cranky bastard.
So apparently now after Obama said McCain has "lost his bearings", McCain's handlers are pissed because they think it was a crack on his age. I believe Obama released a followup statement asking, "wtf are you talking about?"
But OK, Evo, now you've heard it twice. Stop whining about wanting to hear more about Parsley.
Oh. OK Ex.
Let's stop exposing all the Right wingnuts associated with McCain because when the haters find out how vile they are, they will flock to the polls for McCain.
I think you know how silly you sound. If you don't, allow me to expand on my remarks.
You can call me Polly Evo all you want. Here, I'll do it for you - "My name is Polly Evo. And I believe that while there are certainly far right Christian nut jobs who hate gays and Muslims and will vote for McCain over Obama, they would have done so anyway. Further the large majority (probably AT LEAST a plurality) aren't hateful and when they see the viciousness of people like Parsley,they are repelled. And, YES, most of them are even CHRISTIANS! Huh. Who would have guessed? Certainly not my silly friend".
So, yes Ex, I'll keep on asking for discussions of Parsley, Hagee, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and all others associated with McCain who are despicable. But I wouldn't call it "whining". You seem to have missed the tone of this post. It's exuberance and the fact that it is finally happening instead of endless talk about Obama's bowling score, "elitist" comments, Reverend Wright, lapel pin, etc. I LOVE IT.
You've got rose-colored blinders on, Evo.
Suddenly, Rod Parsely is somehow worse than Jeremiah Wright? Not to me; they're both equally disgusting. All religious tyrants who seek to manipulate their ignorant congregations are evil.
So, great. Let's expose Rod Parsley. To which uninformed, blase members of the population do you wish to expose him? And via what medium?
What would be funny is seeing all those right wing fucks complaining about how the media is just sensationalizing and not focusing on the issues if there were tons of Hagee-Parsley loops running. The irony would be entertaining.
Hagee will turn off and antagonize many, many people -- but far fewer than Wright did. The issue with Wright wasn't religious bigotry or even racism; it was anti-Americanism.
More to the point, the Hagee-McCain connection isn't analogous to the Wright-Obama connection. Hagee wasn't McCain's "spiritual mentor" for most of his adult life, nor in any way such a formative influence. He won't damage McCain the way Wright will damage Obama.
What was actually settled this week is that McCain will almost certainly be the next President. Clinton could have beaten him; Obama can't. The Electoral College, the geographical distribution of their strongest supporters, and the demographics of the swing states pretty much guarantee it.
Personally I'm going to start paying more attention to the down-ticket races. A Democratic landslide in the Senate, in particular, could limit the damage which will be done in the next four years.
The Electoral College, the geographical distribution of their strongest supporters, and the demographics of the swing states pretty much guarantee it.
Care to explain that to us dummies since you state this so confidently as fact? I'm fascinated. Go on...
@ Ex, I'm Polly Evo with rose colored glasses and I tiptoe through the tulips.
I don't think it's a matter of exposing the uninformed to Hagee and Parsley (though I wouldn't be shocked if there are a lot of people who know little or nothing about them). I think it's a matter of banging the American public, repeatedly, over the head with these issues. It seems to have an effect.
Philly - I agree. If the populous doesn't want to talk issues, would rather deal in wedge issues, then I think Obama can out-wedge McCain. Anyway, we KNOW they will be tossing crap - they ALWAYS do. Might as well beat them at their own silly game.
At Infidel - No point in arguing it right now. I understand your thinking and disagree. I'm not saying Obama will win. I somehow can't imagine the America I know is ready for a guy like him (including the color and name, but more the philosophical stance). And yet... I think you'll be surprised how competitive the race will be. And it's going to expose the cultural divide much more clearly than it has in ANY other election. So like I said - Let's get it on. We might as well jump into it now, because it's only going to get worse as theocrats come under more and more pressure from the liberal tendencies of egalitarian societies.
Care to explain that to us dummies since you state this so confidently as fact? I'm fascinated. Go on...
See my comment (it's the second one) on this posting for a summary of the main reasons why I make that statement.
I would also add that Florida and Michigan will be critical (they usually are), and they would be more likely to vote for the Democrat who fought tooth and nail to get their votes counted than for the one who encouraged the party to snub them.
I don't think you are dummies. I just think you haven't quite thought this through in terms of how elections are actually decided.
Additional to Infidel - I won't debate you or get into the variety of reasons for it, but I you are of the "this is like Nixon vs. McGovern" mindset - think again. McCain is NOT a sitting Pres and yet he is trying to replace one by running on his love of that guys policies which are pretty unanimously despised (foreign policy and domestic) by Americans. I think you could run Atheist Exterminator against him and he be hard pressed to win 49 states.
And that's BEFORE we talk flip-flops, age and Parsley.
I think it's a matter of banging the American public, repeatedly, over the head with these issues. It seems to have an effect.
Yes, I actually agree with you. However, taking a much dimmer view of the American public than you do, I'm not sure the banging wouldn't turn into tons of free advertisements for Parsley's/Hagee's views.
I also agree with infidel. McCain has never claimed that he has a close relationship with Parsley or with Hagee. He didn't compare either one of them to his uncle. He didn't say that they led him to Christianity, or married him and his wife, or baptized his kids. It's just plain ol' Machiavellian politics as usual. I remind you that a few weeks ago, you were willing to give Obama a pass on that.
It's time to get down to real issues. There are enough of those to go around. If you're gonna fixate on the religious question, you should seriously be considering voting for me and chappy.
Nobody brought me to Christianity, or baptized my kids. And I can't stand my uncles.
If you're going by polls now on what will happen in November and taking that as rock solid fact, you're a moron.
If you buy into that Democratic middle class being so against Obama that they'll vote Republican instead, I think you're high as kite.
If you're still holding out hope for a Hilary win, you're delusional.
Have a nice day, pal.
moron.....high as kite.....delusional
Yeesh, you sound a little rattled.
If you're still holding out hope for a Hilary win
No, I thought I made that clear. Barring some very unlikely turn of events, Obama will be the nominee. And the subsequent election will be decided by the same factors that always decide Presidential elections.
And the subsequent election will be decided by the same factors that always decide Presidential elections. (my emphasis).
I even have to remind intelligent people - careful with those absolutes.
The problem with Jeremiah Wright is RACE, not religion, and that's why it's so much more effective for Republicans than Hagee or Parsley would be for Democrats.
If anything, it might backfire, as the Republicans will use it to show how "out of touch" Obama is with mainstream Christian America. It would only highlight the portrait they want to put out there.
However, I DO agree with Evo that at some point (perhaps now) a candidate will have to confront these Christian fascists and show that they TOO are way out of the mainstream. The problem is that I think way too many religious moderates are ignorant of what's going on in the more extremists churches and/or just don't think it's a serious enough problem.
Maybe Evo's right... maybe some the public needs to start hearing what these mutants are actually saying and have someone call them exactly what they are on national TV: scary, intolerant people who wield way too much political power and are threatening our democracy.
Let's look at the link you said I should read, infidel:
"It's not totally out of the question that Clinton could still get the nomination"
Yeah, you made that real clear.
And yes, I am rattled. It shakes me to the core to face such absolute conviction when it's unwarranted, but it REALLY blows my mind when such nonsense flows from a source that's supposed to be intelligent and rational. Nobody can say with any conviction who will win in November. You're either guessing or hoping. You can site your polls and make little charts and diagrams to rationalize your guesswork into being reasonable fact, but it's still guesswork, educated guesswork at best.
Lifey:
Maybe Evo's right... maybe some the public needs to start hearing what these mutants are actually saying and have someone call them exactly what they are on national TV: scary, intolerant people who wield way too much political power and are threatening our democracy.
And who would that someone be? Edward R. Murrow is long dead.
Ex:
I don't know, but I'm not sure it makes much tactical sense for Obama to do it as a candidate given that they're already going to come after him as an elitist if he attacks even this most outlandish version of Christianity. Especially when you add to it the racial and "anti-American" attack he's bound to get over the Rev. Wright business.
Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe what he needs to do is really go after McCain on Hagee and Parsely and make a case for going beyond religious politics, but I'm not sure there's any guaranteed payoff and, even assuming there is, does it carry the risk of badly backfiring. I'm not sure he should chance it, and I'm almost positive he won't.
Incidentally:
I think Obama's appeal is that folks perceive him as having a political agenda that goes beyond race. Some journalists have even referred to him as "post-racial." I don't see the current atheist "movement" (for lack of a better word) gaining any political traction until it's perceived as having an issue beyond secularism. That is, having a candidate who appears to be concerned with more than getting religiosity out of politics.
Lifey, obviously I'm not asking Obama to lead the attacks on McCain and his political ties. For one thing, it's just not him. I was thrilled just to hear him say that McCain seemed to be losing his bearings!
What I want is for the MSM to go at these issues with the same gusto they have with "bitter clinging" and "J. Wright" and "lapel pins" and "bowling scores". I think of McCain's problems are not legitimate political fodder. But they are going to do it to the Democrat. They always do. This time I want it done to the Republican equally. That's all I'm asking for.
No more "swift boating" of the Dem while the GOP draft dodger gets a pass.
Meanwhile, Obama should largely stay above it and pound him on more legitimate things - that McCain wants a continuation of the war in Iraq, the strategy of invasion in the name of security, the support of torture (especially from a guy like McCain), his admitted lack of knowledge on economic issues at a time when the economy is swirling and pushing for making the tax cuts permanent. That's more than enough for Obama to distinguish himself from McCain and if the press does their filthy job on McCain as well, Obama will have a great shot at winning.
Post a Comment