So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It's nice of McCain to try to tamp that down... but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here?...I agree about the media bias, but let's consider whether there may be some reason to tolerate more anger from the left than the right, especially if the lefties in question are young and the righties are old.
The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved -- particularly on the part of the press -- are what are feeding this anger... So while asking for McCain supporters to chill a bit, can we also ask the press to start doing its job rather than openly shilling for a Democratic victory?
We're genetically programmed to weather the crying and tantrums of children. Teenagers sulk and shout, and we may grow impatient, but we understand the condition. We may well remember feeling the same way. Teenagers and young adults may annoy us, but we're not appalled. We think we can continue to speak calm reason and they will come around some day. But an angry older person sets off an alarm. Something is wrong here. Either there really is a problem or this person is unhinged. It gets our attention.
Now, I know there are old lefties too. Believe me, I know. I live in Madison. But I don't see these people yelling and screaming. I see world-weariness, bemusement, cynicism, and other age-appropriate manifestations of dissatisfaction. That may not be too pretty, but it's not notable. It's not interesting. If these old lefties went to a campaign event and yelled at a candidate irrationally, wouldn't we see it in the news?
Another distinction is the target of the rage. Rage against government -- short of true threats of imminent violence -- is a familiar American tradition going back to colonial days. In its best forms, it's useful and healthy, encouraging evidence that we are not supine. What is disturbing is rage against private citizens, especially against racial and ethnic minorities. There's nothing good there. There's no bracing, salutary form of racism.
In short, an old person expressing anger about race is entirely different from a young person raging about the government. Different treatment is appropriate.
The question remains, of course, whether we're getting accurate reports of angry old racists. I doubt it.
IN THE COMMENTS: People are reminding me of various angry un-young lefties: Olbermann, Kos, Hamsher, Code Pink ladies. I agree that those people rant angrily, but they aren't indulging in "assassination fantasies." But, okay. I don't mean to say there aren't any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person.
(Line that stood out: "Banks are going bust.")
Posts
144 comments:
We absolutely can't expect those youngsters to express themselves appropriately. Can we finally raise the voting age to 40, then?
I think you're way off base on this one Ann. Cruel neutrality has you bending over backward into taking a side.
Twisted rage is twisted rage, no matter the age or political leaning of the rager.
The only distinction that should, sometimes, be made is between evil that announces itself openly, such as presidential assassination fantasy, and evil you have to "interpret" in someone's words to find it. The latter is open to debate. The former should only be condemned.
Now, I know there are old lefties too. Believe me, I know. I live in Madison. But I don't see these people yelling and screaming.
I can't speak for Madison, but on youtube, there's plenty of those Code Pink fanatics raging in infantile fashion, and they mostly look like they're in their 40s. Maybe they're just prematurely aged?
That said, to wax Godwinesque for a moment, it's not like angry old people are typically the ones who bring blood in the streets. It's enthusiastic young people who go all Krystalnacht on us, breaking shopfront windows (e.g. Seattle in 1999). A mob of angry geriatrics just isn't that intimidating, compared to a pack of screaming youths, faces all melty with rage.
Come on Ann. The people on the left are not angry 18 year olds. Or even angry 25 year olds.
Markos Moulitsas is in his mid 30's. Most of the contributing editors to the Daily KOS are in their 40's.
Jane Hamsher at FiredogLake is 49.
The crew at Huffington Post has got to be in their 40's and 50's.
They are not "Teenagers and young adults". They, however, do show an immature attitude.
These people stoke the rage. The facilitate the poor behavior and provide approval rather than approbation.
Would you approve of your grown children acting like this? There is no reason to condone "crying and tantrums of children" after they turn 10. There is no reason to accept "Teenagers sulk(ing) and shout(ing)" when they turn 20. If you condone it, it will happen.
Glad Glenn said what you couldn't bring yourself to Ann. As I said before other than one alleged man (I think Dana Milbank is a liar) saying, "Kill him," we have listened to the left for 8 years voice it's wish of an assasination of Bush and at the beginning of the Iraq war the left was advocating that soldiers murder their COs. Openly. In the papers. On the radio. On the tv. Where was the outrade from the likes of the NYT Editorial page or Milbank? There wasn't any.
Reporters have to lie to make their point that McCain supporters are deranged racists and they think McCain is desperate?
We have US congressman comparing McCain to George Wallace for God's sake. And the Obama campaign does a twisting we don't think McCain's a segragationist, but thanks "John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night."
This is what we have to look forward to if Obama becomes President. Dare question the motives or actions of Dear Leader = you are racist.
So Keith Olberman is a teenager?? He has aged very poorly then.
As a person in his late 30s, what stirs anger in me is how government in Wisconsin accepts, condones, legitimizes and legislates voter fraud. It has refused to follow a federal law to validate voter registration rolls and refused to let the citizens of the state vote on a constitutional amendment for voter ID.
What angers me is that my state government has allowed the power of my vote to diminish. Nothing else in gov't can be fixed if the true mandate of the citizens is not heard.
The question remains, of course, whether we're getting accurate reports of angry old racists. I doubt it.
Which proves first that there is no real out of control anger on the right.
As to regarding the issue of anger on the left, Ann you are so full of shit that I could smell it as soon as "Althouse" showed on my computer.
And I agree with the others. Age is not an issue.
And let's talk MSM - Bill Maher and Randi Rhodes both are long out of college and they both expressed the wish for the assasinations of Bush and Cheney (Maher said the world would be a better place if a foiled assasination of Cheney had been successful).
Both kept their jobs. Randi was suspended for calling Hillary a whore, but kept her job when suggesting Bush should be assasinated.
Ann
How many posts of yours are linked to some journalist, celebrity, pundit or academic of some years throwing out mindless hate towards anything non-liberal?
I often enjoy your posts because they offer a unique point of view, but this one falls well short of that standard.
I just have one word for you Ann.
Pegler
This is deliberate. Palin has never read Pegler. They put that in her speech for a reason.
"No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”
This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver."
Classic double standard based on the "angry young man" myth. However, as Billy Joel sang so well:
And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell-
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.
An angry old person isn't likely to go gonzo on someone - younger people do all the time. Look at how goes apeshit on YouTube.
(Could the next presidential killing be filmed and put on YouTube? Probably - it would fit the killer's twisted thinking. Worse - the MSM would show it over and over, glorifying the killer, and promoting copycats)
The old people are "mad as hell" and have few means to change it. AARP doesn't speak for most of them. Their money keeps getting taken away, but they don't have a say in its disposition. Their Washington representatives send form letters in response to their concerns. The only people who seem to get the attention of government are those that get up in their faces and scream.
Any wonder they're angry?
If anybody wants to see some angry old lefties in the Twin Cities, I can give you some tips.
Only Euclid looked on beauty bare, and we all have our biases. Some biases for reasons you have outlined above are more offensive than others. But by and large left wing biases are considered innocuous, even fashionable. They are, at any rate, completely unexamined. Example: In a previous post, you mention a race baiting Austrian politician in the context of Hitler. Fair enough. The Germans under Hitler established one of the most dystopic regimes of the 20th Century. However, it should be noted that Hitler was in power for only 14 yrs, and that most Germans believe in his evil and the malignancy of Nazi ideals. There is no reason to believe that Germans are more prone to totalitarian excesses than the Russians or Chinese--less in fact. The Russians and the Chinese seem in no hurry to examine whatever character flaws led them to worship such monsters as Stalin and Mao....Now here comes my prejudices: From Africa to the Caribean thru the inner cities here, blacks have produced any number of race baiting leaders who have taken their people over the cliff. If it is not prejudiced of you to be suspicious of right wing German politicians, why is it prejudiced of me to be suspicious of black politicians who are tolerant of race baiting supporters?
Ann...it is coded racism.
If you can't see that you are willfully blinkered.
Ta-nehisi Coates has been blogging this at the Atlantic.
Check him out.
I repeat, demonization of the Other is code for racism.
That is what Palin is doing.
It is explicit.
1 - Code Pink consists of a bunch of elderly left-wing hippies, and they have staged more violent political protests (with obscene words, both spoken and on placards) during this campaign than any other group.
They are Obama supporters; and one of them is a prominent Obama bundler, and that's cool with Obama.
2 - The point that the MSM arm of the Obama campaign is trying to make is that the McCain campaign is inciting violent or extreme conduct on the part of supporters. By that standard, the more frequent violent or extreme conduct on the part of Obama supporters is relevant, whatever their ages.
See, e.g., the much more frequent use of vandalism from the Obama camp, the attacks on McCain campaign offices (Obama offices do not get attacked,) or this video of what happens when McCain supporters try to march through Obama territory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
A clip from the documentary Days of Rage. October 8-11, 1969. Article here. To start "all-out civil war," Ayers bombed a downtown Chicago statue commemorating those killed in the 1886 labor riots, the Haymarket Affair.
"We're against everything that's 'good and decent' in honky America," said Weather leader Jeff Jacobs. "We will burn and loot and destroy. We are the incubation of your mother's nightmare."....[We will] shove the war down] their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. 'Turn the imperialists' war into a civil war', in Lenin's words. And we were going to kick ass."
Hear Bernardne Dohrn at 1:30 talking about the need for revolution.
"Ho Ho Ho, Ho Ch Minh. The Viet Cong is gonna win," they chant. Of course, the Viet Cong was a terrorist group whose bloodthirstiness makes al-Qaeda pale by comparison.
I repeat, demonization of the Other is code for racism.
That is what Palin is doing.
It is explicit.
Bull pucky. Pointing out that a person running for President of the United States doesn't hold the same values as you (in the generic sense) do is not racist. Calling attention to the associations with people who wish for the destruction of the United States(Rev Wright) and people who acted on those wishes by bombing and actively attempting to destroy people and property (Ayers and Dohrn) is not racist.
These are perfectly legitimate concerns and your disengenous attempt to throw down the race card anytime anyone questions "the one" is patently racist in and of itself.
There is no demonization of "the other". Just recongnition of the fact that Obama does he hold the same values as Republican voters. So what? The recongition goes both ways. Palin doesn't hold the same values as many Democrats. BFD. Get over it.
As to the age issue and expressing anger. I believe it is because we expect young people to have little control over their emotions so they get angry over practically nothing. When older people who have experience in life and who should be able to contain themselves become so angered we feel that there is a legitimate problem. Maybe we better pay attention. People are mad, pissed off, angry and like the movie....not going to take it anymore.
The left, however, has never grown up and we see adults acting like juveniles.
I can't even begin to imagine the damage that will be done to race relations in this country if there are 4 or 8 years of "If you criticize the president, you are a racist."
I appreciate your cruel neutrality, Ann.
But the GOP needs a reality check.
The conservative movement has failed to denounce Palin as a demagogue, its trying to spin that the polls are ALL BIASED, has wholly supported Palin's IQ-baiting, and now is tacitly supporting coded racism in Palin's rallies.
You had better draw a line in the sand somewhere.
Before Dr. Reynolds et all are revealed as the intellectual ho's they seem to be.
Don't trust a Ho'
We dont' trust the rightside anymore.
The GOP is losing the youth demographic.
bush v gore 2000 -- gore +4%
bush v kerry 2004 -- kerry +9%
mccain v obama -- obama +35%
as of now...
A tribe without reps can't survive.
"I agree about the media bias, but let's consider whether there may be some reason to tolerate more anger from the left than the right"
No. Let's not.
As far as I can tell the racism is coming all from the left and from the Obama campaign and the media. They are fixated on it. Every single negative about Obama is chalked up to old whitey being racist. It is disgusting and we are angry about it.
I am not voting for Barack Obama, not because his skin color is darker than mine, but because he is red inside and yellow down his back. I don't like socialists and neo-stalinists and I don't want them in my government. I don't want a defeatocrat woos as commander-in-chief.
Let's see now, how old were Ayers and Dohrn when they and their cohorts were blowing up people and buildings?
Hmmm. From Jammie Wearing Fool, imagine finding these "young" people throwing a temper tantrum. Actually, they are throwing Molotov cocktails, so that's change you can really believe in:
"While the media obsesses over a couple of isolated comments at McCain/Palin rallies, the angry left is busy throwing Molotov cocktails at McCain supporters." By the way, these "youngsters" look to be in their late 20s. What will they do when they actually become adults!?!?!?!?!
Hmmmmm
@ Ann Althouse
"IN THE COMMENTS: People are reminding me of various angry un-young lefties: Olbermann, Kos, Hamsher, Code Pink ladies. I agree that those people rant angrily, but they aren't indulging in "assassination fantasies." But, okay. I don't mean to say there aren't any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person."
Bullshit.
Olbermann, at the very least, has spoken about Bush being assassinated -on air-.
The others have themselves called for Bush to be assassinated.
Frankly it's pretty hard taking you seriously when you write such unserious bullshit.
I agree, this post seems like a stretch.
The whole issue is a stretch. Has Dana Milbank or anyone else who is Deeply Concerned About Angry Crowds ever attended a sporting event?
To me, venting anger at your team, the other team or the umpires/referees is what crowds sometimes do. It's the anonymity of being in such a crowd that allows these usually harmless expressions of momentary rage to be released. (Plus booze, and who's to say if the 'kill him' guy wasn't drunk? Did anyone get his name or interview him? Assuming he exists.)
People like Milbank would hear it as a big spontaneous murder conspiracy when a bunch of Mets fans yelled "kill the ump!"
In making the distinction between young rage and old rage, I would be far more worried about the young 'uns. John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald, Leon Czolgosz and John Wilkes Booth were all in their 20s when they took shots at the president. Squeaky Fromme was in her 30s and James Earl Ray had just turned 40. Did those look like early-bird-discounters in the LA rioting in 1991? It's well-established that crime goes up when the median population trends younger.
If you're saying that society tends to indulge young anger more than old, I'd agree with you. But from a public safety standpoint, it should be the reverse. Young anger is much more likely to be translated into destructive action.
I'm sorry, but I will never care one whit about lefties like Wheeler ranting and raving about supposed racist "code words," after seeing all the leftist hate speech for the past eight years. Sheesh.
Ann said: "I don't mean to say there aren't any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person."
What's most disturbing about old lefty anger is that this anger is typically vented not only against Bush and his ilk but on behalf of Obama and his ilk. Their anger is not directed against government in general but against government in the hands of someone they vehemently disagree with. They're just mad cause because they don't see their own pathetic image reflected in the politicians pulling the strings. They will become lovers of government as soon as someone who will exercise its coercive powers to their liking is elected. How immature of them. By their age they should know better. They think everything will be hunkey-dorey so long as their savior is elected. Old fools.
And anger, even just anger against government crimes and pretensions in general, is unbecoming in one who aspires to wisdom. Better to harbor disdainful apathetic contempt towards the government, to simply remove one's moral support and encourage others to do likewise, than to render government the compliment of raging against it.
What john stodder said.
Ann, Madison has polluted your judgment. You can't even begin to see where you're wrong on this.
Liz Trotter to the "prissy" left (media), "stop sniveling and grow up."
There are plenty of left activists who have continued to justify so-called "property damage" that is in fact life threatening violence to defend animal and environmental rights, not at all unlike the Weathermen.
Of course there has been anti-abortion violence from the right as well, but I've never seen anything to make me think McCain would be willing to work with those people on the basis of their being pro-life. When Obama talks as if Ayers' ideas and tactics are historical trivia, it's ahistorical and irresponsible.
I'm not a leftie.
I'm a registered republican.
My grandfather said always vote republican.
I can't.
I'm recoiling in disgust from the GOP.
Once again, Pegler.
But, okay. I don't mean to say there aren't any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person.
It's more disturbing, perhaps, in our assessment of the person's wellbeing, when it comes from someone older. But it's a heck of a lot more threatening in young people.
I have to disagree with Ann. I think the left looks young because their ethos is young. We perceive the left as being less dangerous because their rage is emotion-based and therefore kind of juvenile. It's just as dangerous. As for the actual young leftists, look at the damage they have caused in WTO "protests," for example. Dangerous.
As for the enviros, I recall a guy I know who owns a Hummer walking to his car in La Jolla one morning and finding a note saying "get out, we don't want your kind here." Dangerous. Juvenile, yes, but dangerous.
memomachine said...
Olbermann, at the very least, has spoken about Bush being assassinated -on air-.
The others have themselves called for Bush to be assassinated.
Can you please point me to where Olbermann spoke, on air, about Bush being assassinated? Also, pleas point me to anything that says that Kos or Hamsher called for Bush being assasinated? I looked and could not find any information on these claims.
Thank you.
You should not be perturbed at the dear professor finding racism so terrible. It is just a lefty being a lefty. She would find racism under every Bush so to speak. Typically of tenured professors in the academic hothouse such as the University of Wisconsin. You poor conservative fan boys, she is just marking the affirmative action candidate and his campaign on the curve. This is what professors do to be able to hold their head up at faculty cocktail meetings.
The conservative movement has failed to denounce Palin as a demagogue, its trying to spin that the polls are ALL BIASED, has wholly supported Palin's IQ-baiting, and now is tacitly supporting coded racism in Palin's rallies.
What horseshit.
I need specific examples of Palin's "coded racism" and the "tacit support" for it among anyone in politics. That allegation is outrageous.
And I love the undisprovability of how you articulate it. I didn't hear the racism? That's because it's "coded" and "tacit." Which in the real world means, it never happened.
The notion of bias in the most prominent polls is something serious researchers and political scientists have noted? Newsweek's poll showing Obama with a double-digit lead assumes the turnout will be 40 percent Democratic and only 27 percent Republican. You think people who find that weighting curious should be "denounced" too?
I hope I am not so pissed at the dirty tactics of the media and the left that I will still be able to vote for Obama. I will have to overlook a lot of disingenuous bullshit to do it. The more I feel like I'm being manipulated by this kind of crap, the more I expect I will vote for McCain in protest.
Obama and McCain are both deeply flawed candidates. Neither one nor the other is more deserving of righteous anger. Basically, they both suck.
Like Obama/Biden supporters, McCain/Palin supporters are decent Americans who have come to their conclusions based on reason, not racism, not anger. Quit insulting them, and quit insulting those of us who are independents and trying to look at this election objectively. It's been said by others, the biggest threat Obama faces is from his supporters. If Obama loses, you left-wing pricks can all just blame yourselves.
Bush = Hitler
Rethuglicans
Kill Bush merchandise
Jesusland
I'm a libertarian but do you have any idea how many times I have had leftists scream in my face that I'm a nazi because I support the war on terror?
This is such a joke. The left's stock in trade for eight years and on has been pure naked hatred and fear.
They hated Reagan, they hated Newt, they hated Bush 1, they hated Bush 2, they hate McCain,t hey hate Palin.
What a joke.
I also find it ironic when the left laughs itself silly about the anti-scientific/anti-intellectual bent of the bible-thumpers when there are plenty of people decrying all animal research as unnecessary and unethical. Scientists and researches, mostly in the UK initially, but increasingly here, have been threatened, harassed and physically attacked. Several perpetrators have been imprisoned under domestic terrorism laws, and are championed as "victims" of some bogus terror crackdown. Using violence to promote some ostensibly non-violent agenda is alive and well.
I'm recoiling in disgust from the GOP.
I was prepared to vote for a Democrat this time around. I'd been pretty positive on Clinton, in the comments here, and I think -- particularly given the turn the economy (and McCain's rhetoric) has taken -- that she'd probably do a better job. If McCain, by some miracle, manages to win, I think there's a real risk that he'll try to out-Democrat the Democrats, and tinker with the economy in the manner of FDR -- that's McCain's "pragmatic" or "bipartisan" style, after all, and his hero, Theodore Roosevelt, made his mark demagoguing against business trusts and conglomerates. If FDR's constant meddling prolonged the Great Depression 7 years, that's not an experiment I'm eager to repeat.
But there's simply no way I can vote for a man like Obama, who has fostered a crude 1930's-style personality cult, who relies to that extent on the aestheticisation of politics, on rhetoric, and on the demonisation of the opposition on the sly through his agents and factors. Occasionally, something human peeks out from behind the mask -- there's almost a sense that he might find his most fanatic supporters as embarassing as I do, a sense that he's a little ashamed of the crude sloganeering his campaign is built on -- didn't he admit, in a candid moment, that "Yes we can!" was awfully corny? And that's welcome. At times like that, I can see what his more sober supporters like in him. But, particularly at this time, at this historical juncture, there's no way I can reward that kind of campaign. This is not a time to give in to the lowest common denominator.
“Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy.”
--Aristotle
"It is wise to direct your anger towards problems -- not people; to focus your energies on answers -- not excuses.”
--William Arthur Ward
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
--Douglas Adams
I hope I am not so pissed at the dirty tactics of the media and the left that I will still be able to vote for Obama. I will have to overlook a lot of disingenuous bullshit to do it. The more I feel like I'm being manipulated by this kind of crap, the more I expect I will vote for McCain in protest.
Always nice to hear from the Althouse Sensible Democrat, who never misses a chance to blame a Democrat for something and cloaks their smarmy bullshit safely from some nonexistent sacred middle ground. Seriously, vote McCain, he seems much more your speed and represents you much better than any Democrat could. At least Republicans are honest enough to say they can't stand the guy and wouldn't vote for him because they really think he is a scary leftist.
Wheeler:
I'm not a leftie.
I'm a registered republican.
My grandfather said always vote republican.
I can't.
I'm recoiling in disgust from the GOP.
Wheeler, I don't believe you for one nanosecond. The whole "I'm a lifelong Republican but can't vote for McCain because (insert reason here), is about the phoniest canard in circulation today.
I remember a front page article in the SF Chronicle where a another lifelong Republican was leaving the Party because McCain was "too conservative." And this was before McCain picked Palin! Your reason is just as ridiculous.
"I'm a libertarian but do you have any idea how many times I have had leftists scream in my face that I'm a nazi because I support the war on terror?"
But note that if you support the alleged "war on terror" you also necessarily support forcing every other taxpayer in the country to support something that very many of them are strongly opposed to morally. That doesn't make you a nazi, but it's not very libertarian of you either.
johnk, do you think the war on terror will suddenly vanish because Obama becomes President? You realize that he supports it too, I hope. He has silly ideas about locating it in a single geographical location, but even with that confusion, he still believes we need to be sending more troops there.
Donn beat me to it re Wheeler's life long republican schtick--Wheeler is an obamabot pure and simple.
Thanks for this post, Professor.
It brought back fond memories of Jean Shepherd telling us to put our radios out on the window ledge so he could hurl the invective at Cat Stevens for singing “Father and Son.”
And remember . . . Faye Dunaway said it best: “The denunciation of others is a necessary part of the hygiene of disturbed persons and greatly assists the circulation of their blood.”
jen said: "johnk, do you think the war on terror will suddenly vanish because Obama becomes President? You realize that he supports it too, I hope."
Nope, I don't think the war on terror will suddenly vanish because Obama becomes President. I don't support anybody in this election (or any presidential election, for that matter).
My favorite President was William Henry Harrison, if that tells you anything.
who never misses a chance to blame a Democrat for something and cloaks their smarmy bullshit safely from some nonexistent sacred middle ground.
My issue was with the media. I don't recall raising an issue about Democrats in either of my comments.
But I'm glad my confusion allowed you to expose yourself in this way. You proved my point that it's Obama's supporters who are the problem.
I don't hate Obama at all and have never once said I did. I question if he's up to the job based on a lack of experience and a tendency to ally himself with some skanky types, but on balance I think he's talented and a good man.
However, I have little respect for you or others who claim your superior intellect allows you to embrace nuance but then react like panicked dogs whenever someone nominally on their side raises a question they can't answer.
Really, Obama's not for you either, George. What you need is a candidate who wants you to see you on your knees. You'll gladly comply.
well..this is a reason too.
Go ahead, stick your heads in the sand and pretend you aren't losing the youth vote.
Actually, the stupidity factor is huge for me.
The GOP is rapidly becoming the party of teh stupid.
"The McCain campaign invited me to visit Frederick and the Gainesville operation on Saturday morning, to get a first-hand glimpse of its ground game in Prince William County, Virginia, a fast-growing area about 30 miles from Washington, D.C.
With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." It is also not exactly true — though that distorted reference to Obama's controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. "And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born." Actually, we do; it's Hawaii. "
unbelievable to do that in front of a reporter.
Hopey-Changers Firebomb McCain Supporter's Home
I think you need not trouble yourself over Mr. Obamas socialist tendency since he is much more likely to fall because of his personal corruption. The Rezko problem is most likely just the tip of the iceberg and since the press did not examine him in any real way many unfortunate facts will emerge over time.
David Dinkins didn’t file his taxes. Charley Rangel cheated on his taxes. Sharpe James indicted for 25 counts of corruption during his tenure of Mayor of Newark. Alcee Hastings impeached for bribery. Al Sharpton makes a plea bargain on tax evasion. Coleman Young under FBI investigation for bid rigging and corruption for the last ten years of his tenure as mayor. Harold Washington pleaded guilty for not filing tax returns for four years. Jesse Jackson under investigation by the IRS for extorting monies for his private charities where he put his mistress on the payroll. David Patterson under fire for putting his mistress on the state payroll. Time after time many if not most African American politicians from big city machines are found to be personally corrupt.
It is of course racist to mention these facts.
John Stodder says: But I'm glad my confusion allowed you to expose yourself in this way. You proved my point that it's Obama's supporters who are the problem...However, I have little respect for you or others who claim your superior intellect allows you to embrace nuance but then react like panicked dogs whenever someone nominally on their side raises a question they can't answer.
Actually, garage mahal was and is a pretty stalwart Hillary supporter who wasn't an Obama acolyte from day one. (The same can be said for me.) So your line about Obama's supporters comes off as pretty weak in his case. He is, on the other hand, a loyal Democrat and not a bedwetter like you, John. (The same can also be said for me.)
Please, go ahead and vote for McCain if the spirit moves you. It's a free country and all. Just spare us the drama, and in any case, the Democratic Party will be better off without you, I'm sure.
I think you people are blinded by partisanship.
"Ayers had some contacts with Obama on the project's board. He also held a meeting in his home years ago for Obama, then a novice politician, to meet the neighbors. According to a New York Times investigation, the two men never were close.
From this thin gruel Sarah Palin revs up angry crowds with assertions that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists." Her main goal seems to be to fuel anti-Obama passions in swing states. In Fort Myers, Fla., she declared: "This [Obama] is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America." Palin supporters then shouted abuse at reporters and racial epithets at an African American soundman. One told him, "Sit down, boy." Get the picture?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), one of McCain's close confidantes, told Washington Post columnist David Broder that the Republican campaign would "go down in history as stupid if they didn't unleash" Palin. And so they did.
Right-wing bloggers and talk shows weave Palin's words into a bizarre pastiche of untruths aimed at damning Obama's character. Chain e-mails berate the "mainstream media" for "ignoring" Obama's terrorist ties.
McCain is a man who once decried such negative campaigns. He was Swift Boated by Republican operatives in the South Carolina primary in 2000, with despicable stories about his having fathered a black child. That was then; the desire for office seems to have erased those memories."
Can you even read?
You want examples of insane lefty rage, see:
Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
You know, as a "seasoned citizen," I'm very angry. I'm angry because I never thought I'd have to live thru all this stupid b.s. again. Once was enough in the '60s and '70s. We remember the Weather Underground and their Days of Rage well, we remember the race riots and watching our cities go up in flames. We remember what it is like to have our national leaders assassinated.
When we have now reached the point of being angry, people should pay attention. We are normally mellow with a been there, done that attitude. We don't like our ordered lives upset. So, if we have reached the point of passionate anger, maybe it is time for our useless media to step up and figure out that there are real reasons to be angry and putting a man in office who has been steeped in the Alinsky-Stalin models isn't the right course. We have given too much, sacrificed too many, to have it all be given away to a bunch of crazies and leftists who are sadly undereducated as they go out into the real world with multiple degrees to their name.
Ahem...
Does no one remember Snipers Wanted?
And, ahhhh, yes: The follies of youth. That happened just across the river from me. I guess I simply prefer the disturbing worry of an older individual's racist opinions and verbal outbursts over the extremely dangerous and destructive nature of actively carrying out those opinions, which those individuals on the Left do tend to actually do.
Oh, and Wheeler, are you a Concerned Christian(tm), too?
Reader - I liked the Adams quote. Too funny Thanks.
Go Phils!
Go Phils
Amen! And last night's Boston/Tampa Bay game was a real doozy!
Wheeler, that New York Times story you cite is widely considered a whitewash, designed to derail further inquiry. The evidence is everywhere that Ayers and Obama had a working relationship, not a casual one. It's preposterous to think that a fundraiser would be held in Ayers' house for a stranger.
The problem with Palin's "palling around with a terrorist" meme is it is literally true. She's phrased it carefully. You can't really dispute it. That's why she has to be shouted down and called a "coded" racist.
To point the finger at the right after what the left's done for the past 8 years is outrageous.
The road ahead looks very, very rough. I can't see how any of this is going to turn out well.
The road ahead looks very, very rough. I can't see how any of this is going to turn out well.
Well, I guess that depends on how American's view the road ahead. From where I sit I see us headed down the same road as Europe and Canada, and all that entails (and the MSM will do its part to help in this process.)
Unfortunately, much of McCain's talk seems to be headed down this same road, so I don't have much hope this process will stop anytime soon, or at all.
John Stodder:
I might accept the NYT whitewash if they also print a list of the grant recipients from the $100 Milion Annenberg Challenge grants.
Heck I will settle for the Top 20 Recipients and total dollars received by each.
Maybe Bill Keller will read this and put one of his crack reporters on it??
Don't you undertand. Lefties are "passionate" and "outraged at injustice".
OTOH, Right-wingers are "Extreme" and full of "hate and anger".
Calling an opponent a Racist, unstable old man, or accusing them of lying about a daughters pregnancy is OK, BUT stating your opponent was a friend of a domestic terrorist or unpatriotic is "nasty" and "ugly".
Yeah I see us becoming like a Euro company/ economy. Americans will lose their entrepreneurial spirit- I know I will when taxes hit 50% or more.
I just noticed an Obama TV ad this morning and he promised to expand early childhood education! How fing much will that cost? And FYI -that idea is right out of the Bill Ayers playbook.
Dark Eden said...
"The left's stock in trade for eight years and on has been pure naked hatred and fear. They hated Reagan, they hated Newt, they hated Bush 1, they hated Bush 2, they hate McCain, [and now] they hate Palin."
I think part of the reason that they hated McCain was because he didn't give them anything to really hate or fear him for. They had to make stuff up and pretend that he was actually an artfully disguised W, but it was half-hearted. In private, they were most grateful when McCain picked Palin so that they had someone they could really hate and fear again. For a short while, they feared they might have to learn without hate and fear. And they hated it!
AA says:
"Rage against government -- short of true threats of imminent violence -- is a familiar American tradition going back to colonial days."
Funny...I thought it was actual acts of violence against government that got our nation started.
A little revolution every now and then is a good thing.
By the way, I share Donn's boredom with the "I'm a lifelong Republican but I'm not viting for McCain" schtick. The people who make this claim usually fall into two groups: those who haven't have voted for a GOP Presidential candidate since Ford, and those who are "lifelong" Republicans who weren't old enough to vote in the last election.
Besides - "[t]he GOP is losing the youth demographic"? When has the GOP ever had that demographic? The young are almost by definition on the left: callow, overconfident in their own abilities, underappreciateive of what has gone before. It was a mistake to let them vote at 18, if you ask me. The compelling rationale for doing do - that it was unconscionable to ask young men to be drafted when they couldn't vote - could just as easily have been remedied by increasing the drafting age.
Simon,
My fav quote, that I thought was by Churchill, but turns out it wasn't, is:
If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no head.
That seems about right to me.
Simon:
It was a mistake to let them vote at 18, if you ask me.
Mark my words, after Obama wins this election, you will see a concerted effort to lower the voting age further. Also, they will push to allow illegal immigrants the right to vote.
I think the ugly, hateful, violent tendency is mostly a "lefty" trait. Sure its not one sided but in the political realm very much so and age is not a primary attribute or any kind of excuse.
As for older people being angry, at least they have a lot more reason to be angry than a college kid driving daddy's car. A young person raging against the government is one step from being mad at the pricipal for making you take an obscene T-shirt off. Don't worry kiddos, some of your peers are fighting and dying for you, go back to smoking your hookah and studyin for your Philosophy 201 midterm.
It's preposterous to think that a fundraiser would be held in Ayers' house for a stranger.
I haven't read the NYT article, so have no response with your description of it as a whitewash, but I do disagree with this assumption. I've attended only a few "get to know the candidate" meetings and fundraisers, as I don't have the money to be involved, but I can think of at least one where the hosts were not friends of the candidate. My neighbors were asked by friends to host a meet and greet for a candidate for our council seat. They had a house big enough to hold a gathering, and apparently liked what they know about him through friends and colleagues. That's not preposterous; it makes perfect sense.
Beth,
If McCain began his campaign in the home of David Duke, I doubt you would be singing the same tune.
If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no head.
That hoary old canard might have been true a while ago....but consider.
The only difference between the big government bloated pork product deficit-running GOP and the big government bloated pork product deficit-running Democratic party is social issues.
Abortion, samesexmarriage, Intelligent design, Science.
I think anti-choice and anti-gay is a stone loozer for you guys with the youth vote.
A tribe without reps is pretty much finished.
The major premise of the post makes no sense to me. At 68, my temper is now finally so much more under control than it was when I was under 50. But when I get angry, it is normally pretty well justified by behavior of someone who is purposefully rude or just plain nasty. I believe at my age, I don't have to tolerate intentional aggressiveness towards me or my family.
Showing anger is a way to ward the aggressiveness off and also to keep me from eating myself up with resentment.
It seems to me Justified anger is a healthy outlet for young or old, left or right, rich or poor.
Ann, I buy your point that angry old folks are of more concern than angry young ones. Your implication that there is more hate spewed by old conservatives than old liberals is factually incorrect. The ratio is likely more than 100 to 1 with the liberals walking away with the contest. We can start with Code Pink "ladies" and their hate filled rants everywhere from the galleries of Congress to outside the recruiting stations in various cities to the Republican convention. I've heard Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann scream for the death of the pres and VP. The racist rants of Father Pfegler and Rev. Wright are other examples. Listen to the insane rage of Madonna and Sandra Barnhard toward Sarah Palin. I could add many dozens of others to the list. For example, go to any Palin rally and you will hear and see old liberals (usually outside) yelling some of the most offensive comments one can imagine. Surely you have heard old liberals scream racist rants toward our current Secretary of State.
Frankly, your comments seem to deliberately ignore facts.
------
In separate posts you discuss whether Ayers wrote Obama's first book. I know it's not your theory, but it is silly. Obama wrote the book.
Beth, I think Donn got you and every Obama supporter on that one.
Donn, you'll have to use that analogy for everyone in Chicago who worked with Ayers, and that just doesn't work with Duke. I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's association with Ayers differs from that of a whole host of Chicago public figures. Indict them all, that's fine with me. But the Duke analogy is weak.
Donn and host: you both ignore the point of my post in any case, that people hold events for candidates without being their bestest friend forever.
Beth,
No doubt that at times people host "get to know the candidate" events simply because they have a big house, or some such thing.
However, to use that line of thinking in this case is simply ludicrous, considering the real relationship that Ayers and Obama have shared.
Ann says something idiotic and off we go. She must roll about on her couch laughing. Next from AA: "Dog poo does not stink" - guarantee 97 comments.
Re: the hosting of the fundraiser.
No one really knows when Ayers and Obama first met. The fundraiser was in 1995; the CAC ran from 1995 to 1999. It was 1995 when Ayers gave the interview saying that he was a "small 'c' communist."
We do know that Obama interned in 1989 at the Chicago law firm where Dohrn, Ayers' utensil-loving wife, was employed until 1988 and where a good friend of Ayers' father was a partner.
From Instapundit as well comes this. Isn't thuggery just thuggery?
Yes, it is different. Some people yell their frustrations, other torch private property.
Wheeler's said...
"[C]onsider * * * [that t]he only difference between the big government bloated pork product deficit-running GOP and the big government bloated pork product deficit-running Democratic party is social issues."
Not so. The difference is that what you describe is a corruption for the GOP, a maladaptive response by some of its representatives that deviates from what the party itself stands for, while it is what the Democrats stand for. The former can be fixed; the latter can't in the proper sense be described as being broken.
"I think anti-choice and anti-gay is a stone loozer for you guys with the youth vote."
That sentence makes a mockery of your claim to be a republican. We'll set aside the "you guys" phrasing, which explicitly stands you on the other side of an "us and them" divide from conservatives, and the malapropism "loozer." What really gives you away as a liberal is the canard "anti-choice." Although there are many pro-choice conservatives, they don't use the "anti-choice" locution.
We do know that Obama interned in 1989 at the Chicago law firm where Dohrn, Ayers' utensil-loving wife, was employed until 1988 and where a good friend of Ayers' father was a partner.
Yeah, that bastion of Bolshevism called Sidley Austin LLP. Gotta watch out for those guys.
Balfegor - Well, to me, the present difference is that Obama might fail leading the country - whereas what I know of Lifetime Senator McCain leads me to a conviction that he WILL FAIL.
Since I live in an utterly reliable Blue State now poised to toss out the last remaining Republicans in Congress from the State - I have the luxury of voting McCain as a symbolic protest vote. That from my disgust at the Angry Left, media double standards, and Obama's sleazy Chicago past.
If I lived in a close State, however, I think I would have to vote Obama - a roll of the dice. But odds of him doing better than Dubya are better than McCain with his set ways combined with his unpredictable erraticism, his limited vision and constant betrayals of his fellow Republicans.
I would have felt much better if Hillary and Mitt Romney had been the nominees.
*****************
Kudos to the poster who reminded me of the great Billy Joel "Angry Young Man" lyrics.
We see a pattern in the Left of most passing through it as a youthful infatuation, but a significant and dangerous element that forgoe a meaningful career for a lifetime of activism and travel that traps them. Because when they reach 30, they see what prestige and lifeskills investment they have made has locked them into a lifestyle they cannot retrench from and have the same peer approval and popularity in.
Few have the wealth like Ayers or the conman skills of a Ward Churchill to gain the precious few thousand spots in academia that permit them relative affluence, job security, and leisure time to stay in "angry social justice struggle".
It is a big step down for a broke 32-year old guy that called himself by his Revolutionary nickname "Spartacus" to adoring coeds wanting to bang away their white guilt - to admit he is just Stanley Murklemann, son of utility worker - and the only mainstream jobs he is qualified for are in fast food and store clerking, since he pissed away his college time and coursework.
So he can stay a professional revolutionary or don the paper hat and man the fryolator...and retreat into fantasy and pretend that he is still "Spartacus", that his real ID, his secret ID, is that of a revolutionary hero he cannot reveal - or his secret hero persona will be subject to persecution by State organs which are everywhere and don't understand him.
(It is no accident that the sons of communists created most comic book and radio super heroes. All with secret identities to shield them from an un-understanding public that would oppress their real selves - the hero out to help the public and achieve justice. They were greater than their mundane 9 to 5 jobs.)
Simon,
I picked up Wheeler's use of "anti-choice" as well, started a post on that topic, and decided to let it drop.
The only difference between the big government bloated pork product deficit-running GOP and the big government bloated pork product deficit-running Democratic party is social issues.
Abortion, samesexmarriage, Intelligent design, Science.
Correct, my mostly pointy- headed friend. Certainly more correct than our host's original assertion.
Ann said: especially if the lefties in question are young and the righties are old.
Who said the righties are old and the lefties are young. Why not defend the righties since they are young?
I thought there was a chance that McCain really could get your vote somewhere down the line, but this huge blindspot can't be willful.
If you honestly don't see the full fledged BDS in people, young and old, on the left, including assassination fanatasies, then I am speechless.
Is this some kind of joke, maybe a test of some kind?
The hypocrisy of the media and Obama supporters (is there a difference?) about how mean and angry McCain/Palin supporters have been is overwhelming. Truly a case of seeing the mote in your opponents eye while ignoring the beam in your eye.
For example, [url=http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081012_Palin_hears_plenty_of_boos.html]from the Philadelphia Inquirer[/url]:
[quote]Police said about 400 protesters lined the streets outside the hotel, the same number that organizers expected at the fund-raiser, chanting to each other and to passing motorists. ...Outside on Broad Street, waiting for Palin to leave, one man was heard saying: "Let's stone her, old school."[/quote]
Imagine the reaction from the media and the Obama campaign if a crowd of 400 angry McCain/Palin supporters had gathered outside of Obama’s hotel and one of them had screamed for him to be lynched. From women being stoned is the equivalent of a black man being lynched.
Whenever I read these angry leftist tirades, I think of the character Pasha in Doctor Zhivago. The idealistic student who becomes the executioner. Not much of a leap when you think about it.
Hmmmmm.
@ lionheart
"Ann says something idiotic and off we go. She must roll about on her couch laughing. Next from AA: "Dog poo does not stink" - guarantee 97 comments."
*shrug* frankly with this sort of crap becoming regular I frankly don't see the point of wasting my time here.
I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's association with Ayers differs from that of a whole host of Chicago public figures.
Well exactly. Richie Daley, a far shrewder and more experienced politician than Obama has everything you would want in a president. But he'll never run because he is covered with Chicago slime and he and his supporters know it would sink him.
Obama, with the aid of the media, has been able to pretend he's not part of the Chicago mob, and yet his defense on the Ayers matter is "dude, I'm from Chicago, what did you expect?"
Chicago, like most big cities nowadays, is run by a wacky combination of radical activists, labor unions, political hacks, crooked fixers, planners, engineers and real estate tycoons, with perhaps a few ministers and a rabbi thrown in.
If Obama wins, he'll be the first big-city machine politician with corrupt mentors to serve as president since Harry Truman. That's not by accident.
John Stoddard: I understand your point, and will only say the Harry Stearns Truman, a product of the Prendergast Kansas City Machine, turned out OK--the question, of course, is this: Is Barack Obama a Harry Truman?
Donn, you'll have to use that analogy for everyone in Chicago who worked with Ayers, and that just doesn't work with Duke
No.....only with those who are running for President. If Obama has nothing to hide or has nothing to be ashamed of, then why isn't he being forthcoming about his relationship with Ayers? Instead we get multiple variations of excuses.
Um just a guy in my neighborhood.
Um, our kids go to the same school (except Ayers kids are from a different generation than Obama's)
Um. We just sat on a few boards and barely knew each other. (Bullshit. I sit on boards and you have to know the other board members in order to get along.)
Excuses after excuses. Obama reminds me of Bart Simpson.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me. You can't prove a thing."
Is Barack Obama a Harry Truman?
No.
Ann says something idiotic and off we go. She must roll about on her couch laughing. Next from AA: "Dog poo does not stink" - guarantee 97 comments.
Althouse isn't rolling on her couch. She's too busy dreaming up ways to drive traffic, with or without dog poo.
Here's what's really on her mind:
"This blog has gotten me exposure and some good gigs, like writing in the NYT and being on NPR a few times. Now, it's time to move to the next level. And I'm not talking about more Bloggingheads, either. If I do it right, I'll get 1000 comments a post, and my Sitemeter will go to 50 million before school's out. Damn thing will finally make me a little money.
"But I'm a writer and performance artist first and don't really need the money. What I really want is to be more famous. Maybe I can get to be a regular on real TV. What to do?
"Hmmm...My righty commentariat is a spent force. Boring, predictable same-old same-old. Now, I've played off of lefty hate for a while, but it looks like there's a big political shift going on. Could be 1932 all over again. Maybe I should cover my ass and try to get some lefty love for a change. The righties can be the ones screaming now. They're too polite to troll, but they'll still read me. And the left controls the media, which might take me more seriously as a 'thoughtful' commentator. Looks like a win-win to me.
"Plus, if I get a regular spot on PBS, or (be still my heart) ABC, you all can still comment on my blog. My staff and I will throw you 20 provocative posts a day. 50 if I get the ABC deal."
John S., I don't disagree - Obama is a Chicago politician. I believe most Americans know what that means, and they don't need the press to explain it to them. By all means, it's all fair game in this race, as are McCain's associations and his history. Ayers doesn't weigh too much in my estimation; he's just part of the Chicago package.
Shorter Beth explaining press silence on Ayers / Racist Pastor Wright:
Nothing to see here, Obama is just another Democrat.
Obama, with the aid of the media, has been able to pretend he's not part of the Chicago mob, and yet his defense on the Ayers matter is "dude, I'm from Chicago, what did you expect?"
It's all a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. By running Rev Wright 24/7 in the primaries, and now complying with McCain's hissy fits that they run Ayers 24/7 they've actually softened the electorate senses to this horrifying association. There has to be some reason not the fault of Republicans why Obama is crushing McCain.
What is disturbing is rage against private citizens, especially against racial and ethnic minorities. There's nothing good there. There's no bracing, salutary form of racism.
What about the expression of "racial rage" BY racial and ethnic minorities? In many parts of America White folks are the racial minority as they will be in the nation as a whole in a few decades.
In ALL parts of America White people are far more likely to be mugged, raped, robbed or murdered by someone black or brown than the the other way around.
IN THE COMMENTS: People are reminding me of various angry un-young lefties: Olbermann, Kos, Hamsher, Code Pink ladies. I agree that those people rant angrily, but they aren't indulging in "assassination fantasies." But, okay. I don't mean to say there aren't any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person.
Christine Chubbuck was only 29 years old .
Baron Zemo-
You forgot to mention Marion Barry, Kwame Kilpatrick, John Conyers, and William Jefferson.
To me the more disturbing thing is how the old lunatic fringe has become embraced and institutionalized within the Democratic party.
Republicans-the party leadership plays whack a mole with their lunatics, the Democrats have their dynastic families like Daley coming out to defend Ayers.
Ayers-who wanted to kill the guys that weren't rich enough to escape Vietnam like he did.
Weren't rich enough to escape a verdict like he did.
Weren't rich enough to buy their way into the hierarchy of the Daley Chicago Democratic stronghold.
The old lunatics run the democratic asylum-
Why else would a guy who actively shorted the currency of the greatest capitalist society in the free world -Geeorge Soros practically own the Democratic party.
The reason that Ayers doesn't bug some too much?
Maybe because he is the monster in your mirror.
The hippie age children that escaped Vietnam because they were rich, went to college and could stay safe at home to spit on guys like my dad.
Hey you know if you had the money that Ayers had, were doped up like Ayers was, and had the lack of conscience some like Bill Mayers call it guts by gawd Ayers could have been YOU.
So that's why it's all so acceptable what he did-that and the fact that he just wasn't that good at it.
But the intent was there-and redeclared some twenty years later.
And that's OK because well...that one's beyond me.
I don't understand what all of you are carrying on about.
What does the fact that we on the left are angry about eight years of vindictive, secretive malfeasance have to do with people in the crowd yelling "terrorist" or "off with his head" and McCain and Palin reacting by smiling?
Do you think that if people said similar things about McCain at Obama rallies that Obama would just let it go?
Let's say Obama is polite to Bill Ayers when their paths cross. That has absolutely nothing to do with how he would act as President. i am sure I stand next to former terrorists each time I go to Whole Foods in Berkeley!
More damming, I say hello to John Yoo when I see him at the gym.
It's mostly about the lying, including the anger. I'm looking for an ad:
Barack Obama lied about the cause of the economic crisis
and the media covered for him.
He lied about his position on abortion (infanticide)
and the media covered for him.
He lied about his position on gun control
and the media covered for him.
He lied about his relationship with Acorn the voter fraud folks
and the media covered for him.
He lied about his relationship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers
and the media covered for him.
When others tried to expose his lies the media called them racists.
What would our country look like if the media covered up a President's lies
and branded all his critics as racists?
elHombre: I guess we're about to find out.
I'm having trouble with the idea that it's more troubling to hear old people saying racist things, than it would be to hear young people saying them. Most everyone I know, right or left, chalks up anything a person over 60 says to the fact that they grew up in an earlier time.
Mark Steyn's comments on the "rage"
Yes we are, Darcy, and 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'
(Ann: I'm an old ex-Democrat. Since my earlier post was about Obama, I must be "an old person expressing anger about race."
I have emailed to ask the Associated Press for confirmation.)
madawaskan - Obama doesn't bother me; Ayers isn't running for president. Ayers should have gone to jail, and I don't admire him, nor anything he did. But making an argument about what a louse he is doesn't mean anything to me - and a whole lot of other voters -- about Obama.
There has to be some reason not the fault of Republicans why Obama is crushing McCain.
The version of Obama we see in our homes every day is an appealing man with only a few minor flaws. He's a moderate.
The version of McCain we see in our homes every day is an unappealing man, "a true American hero, but..." erratic, rapidly aging, and a link in the unbroken chain of woe between Bush and Palin.
McCain comes from the party that caused the stock market to go down and destroyed home equities.
Obama comes from the party that will come in and clean up the mess.
How much either image is true, I don't see how low information voters could possibly tell.
I hope Obama is as fabulous as the media is presenting him. I gotta figure they know something; I don't discount their bias as purely a matter of being party factotums. They see him up close and sincerely believe he is The One.
But if Obama turns out to be another Carter, which is my fear, the media will have lost whatever remaining credibility it has, even with low-information voters. The media has vouched for the guy in a big way. They can't run away from him later.
elHombre: Psst...I'm an ex-Dem as well. ;-)
Craig Kilborn, just to take an example, isn't young, and he has definitely peddled assassination advocacy. I think Prof. Althouse is rationalizing. I agree that, in an academic setting, it isn't unusual to hear people raging about George Bush and fantasizing about killing him, whereas obviously no one in the faculty lounge would dream of saying such things about Obama. So obviously the former doesn't shock Prof. Althouse, whereas the latter does. But the reason has nothing to do with young and old.
i am sure I stand next to former terrorists each time I go to Whole Foods in Berkeley!
So, there's a specific reason why you need and must go that Whole Foods, as opposed to other shopping options, on and/or off line?
What a weird comment, in it own way, but a marvelous one, for which I, myself, am quite grateful, on account of its sparking.
skaus: I owe you a "thank you," though I expect you won't thank me for that--and nor should you.
Beth-
I get your point I suppose but what I don't get and maybe it is my problem-given how one of my first memories coming back to the states is running after my dad who was trying to get away from us so that we wouldn't see a crowd of people trying to spit on him and yell at him-it was the very night that RFK was assassinated-but I'm thinking do people have to have experienced what I did to be so damn angry?
I wish I could be more succinct but I keep trying to put myself in Obama's place and I would have avoided Ayers like the plague. Out of fear of what I might do to him.
But also for the practical reason-I don't think that someone with Ayers credentials should be how someone goes about advancing their political career.
So the excuse has been well that's the way it is done in Chicago-but how is Obama suppose to be about change when he is always going along never getting angry never seeming to fight how things are done-and actually profiting from that.
Always voting present. I just don't get it.
I found it absurd that I actually thought that McCain should only run that ad-attacking Obama on this-in military communities are where there are retirees it's sad that only they would get how it feels.
I don't know how to explain it.
Maybe I should explain it on a more macro level.
How is Ayers accepted in the democrat city of Chicago?
Why is he honored with politicians visitng his home to fund raise?
Why does he have that kind of power?
Why can't I be angry at a party-Democrats-and a presidential nominee who did that?
Why can't I be aghast at the fact that they -Democrats and Obama saw absolutely nothing wrong with it?
ElcubanitoKC said... Some people yell their frustrations, other torch private property.
Others bomb a judge's home.
skaus said: i am sure I stand next to former terrorists each time I go to Whole Foods in Berkeley!
Nah...they shop at the Bowl.
Beth-
Sorry holy run-on batman but I'm too tired to fix it.
I know it must be torture for an English teacher to read that-
Yikes!
They can't run away from him later.
As to that, let's wait and see, shall we? I would place no such bet, myself, but then, I'm not in the same game as are high-stakes bettors.
But also for the practical reason-I don't think that someone with Ayers credentials should be how someone goes about advancing their political career.
It's kind of like a serious actor starting out in porn. Some have done it, but it diminishes them.
I have a few old friends who came up in LA politics through the Tom Hayden/Jane Fonda world. She was funding a lot of campaign and environmental groups in the 80s and 90s from offices based in Santa Monica. (When she found out he was cheating on her, they all lost their jobs!)
Anyway -- I've got no problem with that. First of all, Hayden was no terrorist. Secondly, he decided to become part of the political system, standing for election as a state assemblyman, and serving effectively. Through his service in the legislature and through funding ballot initiatives, he subjected his ideas to the political system. He failed at least as often as he succeeded.
Whereas Ayers has never won a thing, but managed to suck up to enough of the right people to amass control over $100 million that could have been spent much better on real education reform. And Obama helped facilitate him.
The right question McCain should ask, the one that is not "hate-filled," would be to outline Ayers' published beliefs on education, and ask Obama to explain where he differed with Ayers, and if he indeed differed, why he would work with someone like that. Especially given his record as an attempted murderer and terrorist whose only regret was his failure to do more.
The right question McCain should ask, the one that is not "hate-filled," would be to outline Ayers' published beliefs on education, and ask Obama to explain where he differed with Ayers,
I've been tooting that horn, John, but to no avail, no avail at all. I suspect it will be better received from you than from me, but still, most likely, it's a non-starter.
A shame, for sure. A sin, for sure.
In any case, it's too late.
John Stodder-
Ya I'm trying to figure out how to explain this to people.
There is such a thing as too aloof.
I should start a story like-
A tale of two boyfriends....
I use to work in a bar, I was dating one of the bartenders and the old boyfriend was still a bouncer....
Let's see...
So this big brawl breaks out and our bouncers-we had five of them-they were overwhelmed-and we're talking one of them was living at the Olympic training center as a member of the Judo team-so anyways the sh*t is hittin' the fan.
I look at this big pile of guys and I realize one of our bouncers-my old boyfriend is at the bottom of it-and I decided to jump in-the managers jumped in, the D.J. ,the kitchen staff came running out-and oh ya my boyfriend the bartender hid behind the bar.
Needless to say-um that guy he was a lot like Obama...
The old boyfriend-John McCain.
[that still probably doesn't make sense I'm off to hit the Drambuie...]
My theory here is that Ann is trying to find a reason to vote for Obama, or, more maybe more accurately, override what she knows to do so. Part of this is justifying away the level of hatred, vitriol, and violence on the left in general, and of Obama's supporters in particular.
That has always been the hallmark of the Obama campaign. Yes, many of its supporters are young. But many who have been joining in for months are not.
Of course, there has always been a double standard here. There is a reason that Republican tires are the ones that get slashed every election, whereas it is almost unheard of for Democratic ones to be slashed. Ditto for campaign sign vandalization.
Part of this is that liberalism is emotional at its very core. It is hard to rationally be a liberal. Why? Because it doesn't work. Never has work, etc. It is legislating by feeling good, instead of legislating by what will work.
Obama's promise to raise capital gains taxes even if that would raise less in taxes (and hurt the economy) because it would be "more fair" is symptomatic of this. A purely emotional policy proposal.
We all know this, even those who pretend otherwise. So, many, if not most, in our society absolve liberals from their emotional outbreaks, threats of assassination, vandalism, etc., regardless of their ages, because liberals are supposed to be emotional. Republicans are supposed to be rational, and so emotional displays, esp. of the Democratic types so familiar to us, stand out.
Of course, as someone above pointed out, the same standards apply to corruption. Democrats are often the product of inner city machine politics, and so a certain level of corruption is almost expected. It is nigh impossible to list all the examples currently in Congress (for a very minor example, of the two Democrats leading the bailout, one was the #1 recipient of Fannie and Freddie contributions, while the other one once had a male prostitution ring run out of his Congressional offices).
Besides - "[t]he GOP is losing the youth demographic"? When has the GOP ever had that demographic? The young are almost by definition on the left: callow, overconfident in their own abilities, underappreciateive of what has gone before. It was a mistake to let them vote at 18, if you ask me. The compelling rationale for doing do - that it was unconscionable to ask young men to be drafted when they couldn't vote - could just as easily have been remedied by increasing the drafting age.
Hey, shouldn't we take the vote away from women too? After all, the gender gap voted 8 years of Clinton corruption into office. Can we really trust the weaker and more emotional sex to vote rationally, and not emotionally?
But, if that is the standard, shouldn't we limit the vote to taxpayers? Our Founders may have had something there when they limited the vote to property owners. Something about bread and circuses.
BH:
Part of this is that liberalism is emotional at its very core.
This is exactly right.
Even leaving aside his past actions and statements, how could Obama be in the same room with this jerk, let alone give his projects millions of dollars? Down with capitalism! Viva Ward Churchill! They are both insufferable. Same for Rev. Wright. Even if I'd never seen a single sermon from him, his performance at the National Press club revealed him to be a vain buffoon with a very disturbed world view. I simply don't buy Obama's routines about being surprised to learn about these clowns. I've never heard Rezco, speak, but I'm guessing he's no charmer either. None of these guys are people he just-happens-to-know, by a long shot.
Conservatism has its own strong emotions, and how can it not, after all? So Frost Astounds, and so what?
Look, if there's hateful rhetoric that causes violence, let's see the violence.
One quirk of lefties is how they equate things people say with reality. Intentions tend to be more important than results.
From my point of view, most of the actual violence tends to come from lefties. There are some exceptions, like anti-abortion terrorists, but mostly is left wingers burning down research labs, attacking ski resorts, and burning campaign signs they don't like. All these things happened in my state.
So, we can go with the reality, or we can go with verbiage. I think the actions are more important.
It's been said by others, the biggest threat Obama faces is from his supporters. If Obama loses, you left-wing pricks can all just blame yourselves.
John Stodder: you can say that again.
Former LA county prosecutor
Vincent Bugliosi is 74 years old.
He wants to prosecute George W.
Bush for murder of American
soldiers. He made the case for
it in his book "The Prosecution
of George W. Bush For Murder".
Bugliosi made a presentation
on his book to a meeting of
Progressive Democrats of Los
Angeles which was telecast on
C-SPAN2 8/3/2008.
Many of the post-presentation
questioners were:
(1) as angry as Bugliosi about
the war in Iraq and
(2) were "adult" age.
It sure seemed over-the-top and unseemly to me. There is very
strong hatred for W. amongst
progresssive Democrats.
You can always find something diversionary to avoid the real issues, can't you. Whitewater for Clinton. This nonsense for Obama. Hate filled young people. Republican tires being slashed. Reduce the capital gains tax to zero to raise more revenue.
No one could screw up the country more than the Republicans have, in lock step behind Bush.
Sad little people.
Beth - I doubt any of your friends have hosted a fundraiser for a candidate they barely knew about who'd never before had a fundraiser held for him or her by anyone else. Fundraisers like the ones you are talking about do happen, but only after initial successes among friends and the enthusiasm generated at those early events.
Blogger Peter Stevens said...
"Former LA county prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi is 74 years old. He wants to prosecute George W. Bush for murder of American soldiers"
I guess the Obama campaign has found its Andrey Vyshinsky.
Bruce Hayden said...
"[Simon said that it was a mistake to lower the voting age;] shouldn't we take the vote away from women too? After all, the gender gap voted 8 years of Clinton corruption into office."
If you want to claim that women of any age are as immature and incapable of exercising the right to vote as kids aged 18-20, you're on your own, Bruce. ;)
Ann, you wrote "I agree that those people rant angrily, but they aren't indulging in 'assassination fantasies.'"
Evidently you've forgotten the books about the assassination of GW; the movie Death of a President; the protest signs with GW in the gunsight. There's been quite a lot of assassination fantasies on the Left.
There's neutrality, and there's poor memory false neutrality. In this case, you seem to have the latter.
Helen, the issue at hand is behavior at campaign events. I am saying that if there were hateful things like that at Obama/Biden rallies the news would probably cover it.
"If I lived in a close State, however, I think I would have to vote Obama "
Wow, and you guys make light of my theory that C4 is a leftist mole.
"Helen, the issue at hand is behavior at campaign events. I am saying that if there were hateful things like that at Obama/Biden rallies the news would probably cover it."
Ann, this thread has just about run its course so you might not even see this, but I do have a question.
Just how often do you see republicans/conservatives get together en masse?
The same question could be asked about the democrats/left as "formally" one group, but the latter do converge informally quite a bit more often than the former--protest marches, concerts, etc, where hateful political speech is spewed.
Just because it doesn't happen at Obama rallies (or more likely is not being highlighted by the media) doesn't mean it doesn't occur at other venues with far more frequency and ferocity.
Post a Comment