So some thoughts on the debate that gelled as I was taking the Red Line back from North Hollywood to MacArthur Park (TG had an event near there, so I just took the train both ways and met her).
First, Palin really did miss the opportunity – primarily the opportunity to define the difference between her and McCain’s policies and Obama and Biden’s. She touched on her vision in her closing statements, which were about freedom, but she made no connection whatsoever between any policy responses she made and the vision she so poorly articulated.
Great political speeches and speakers do three things – they present a political vision “city on a hill”; the tie the vision to specific policies; and they establish the speaker as the vessel for that vision, someone capable of carrying out those policies, and someone the voter can viscerally believe because they feel a connection.
No one running today – not even Obama – is a great political speaker (he comes close, but he’s not there).
Palin needed to be last night to win the election. She wasn’t close.
Half the time she was warm, genuine – connectable. The other half, she was obviously working to remember her list of talking points – which she did.
Biden was smoothly spinning – and even his most outrageously stupid statements – like putting NATO troops into Lebanon (how’d that work out last time, Joe?) – were delivered with assurance and forceful confidence.
On the facts, I’d call it a draw. On presentation, you’d have to decide it on points, and the judges could legitimately score it either way.
Palin could have lost the election last night, and she didn’t, so good for her. But she could have won it as well – and didn’t – so not so good for her.
How could she have won it, and what does the debate mean to her?
Let’s go back to the movie “Dave“…
…the charm of this movie was that an average American with common sense and a good heart could wipe away the machinations that make up our political culture today; that if only we brought our suburban accountant in to look at the books, we could come up with budget plans that make more sense, and that the core of Washington politics is so jaded, cynical, and corrupt that government has a hard time delivering what the country needs.
That’s the basis of the populist narrative that has been strong in America since before William Jennings Bryan, and which ebbs and flows as the folks at the centers of power periodically forget who they really work for and what they are there to do.
If ever the time was ripe for a strong populist candidate, that time is now – and Palin was perfectly chosen as that candidate. Sadly, she hasn’t been able to deliver.
Why? I’d guess because on one hand she hold deeply populist views, and on the other, she wants to get elected, and to get elected, you’re supposed to dance in just such a particular way.
If I had to diagnose the core weakness in her and McCain’s campaign to date, it’s that they are straddling between who they really are or want to be – people who deeply believe in the idea of stripping away the weeds that are growing up around American political power – and the basic block-and-tackle traditional marketing process which is a modern campaign. The successful consultants, who have won dozens of races, or they wouldn’t be advising at that level, try and shape the traditional messaging and patterns of modern national political campaigns to the character of the candidate.
But what if the character of the candidate is rooted in the notion that the mechanisms of modern politics are flawed?
Now there’s an interesting conundrum.
Personally, having thought about the debate for a day, I still call it for Biden. …but you know, I’d be about as comfortable – or uncomfortable – with him a heartbeat away from the Presidency as I would be with her.
_”it’s that they are straddling between who they really are or want to be – people who deeply believe in the idea of stripping away the weeds that are growing up around American political power – and the basic block-and-tackle traditional marketing process which is a modern campaign.”_
I’ll go you one better- I don’t think McCain can mentally truly make the break with the Washington Way that would be necessary. He’s like the black sheep of the family that everybody knows is a rebel, but at the end of the day still shows up from Thanksgiving dinner. He just isnt going to turn that flamethrower of a wit we know he has on Washington the way so many of us need to see it done.
And Palin just isn’t up to taking that step against the campaigns orders. Maybe she will never be, but certainly not now. She’s a double A pitcher brought in to close game 7, she’s not going to shake off pitches.
I call it a lack of imagination by this campaign. They are so close and grasping so desperately for that defining message they know they can win with. But thats not the same thing as the genuine article. They (or McCain certainly) just isnt feeling it. He’s just not going to drop a kettle of acid on Barney Frank or Chris Dodd… certainly not Bonior or Bush.
I’m sure in his mind he’s just being ‘bipartisan’ and seeking to change the tone, but in reality he just doesnt have it in him to burn down the place he’s spent so long in. Its one thing to oppose earmarks, another to try to get your life long friends run out of town on a rail. He doesnt have the stones, and even more sadly, he doesnt know he doesnt have them. He doesnt see it.
I’d say Andrew Jackson is a better antecedent for Sarah Palin than WJ Bryan. He, like Palin, was an example of the Authenticity of Ignorance. I’ve read he thought the Earth was flat. His populist economic policy resulted in a terrible mess in 1837. His views with respect to Indians were unenlightened even by the standards of his time. But he represented what was then the West.
Second time around we did better, with Lincoln. Lincoln had political skills, but, at least by 1860, he was also deeply involved and had mature, although evolving, views on the main question of the day. Palin? Crammed hard for the test, but was left with little but her script. She couldn’t defend her opinions on any number of issues; she doesn’t even realize places her opinions (which may day from day-before-yersterday) conflict with McCain’s.
Palin probably did manage to stop the bleeding; maybe she saved Missouri, North Carolina, and Indiana. But McCain hasn’t made any appreciable inroads in the scenario of Kerry+IA+NM+CO, and that’s not even counting VA and FL. I doubt if Palin’s debate changes that.
Yes, but she speaks to us bitter middle Americans who are clinging to,our families, guns and religion. You know the ones you elitists think need ruling, by you. FOAD
Uh, Robo??
A.L.
>The successful consultants, who have won dozens of races, or they wouldn’t be advising at that level…
You mean like Bob Shrum?
As a conservative I do find it troubling that both Palin and McCain seem to think they need to out-populist the D’s to win. Not that there isanything wrong with doing the “Common Man” stuff.
I like Palin and I think she is pretty good. I just hope she doesn’t turn out to be Jesse Ventura. The sister told me last night about an interview she heard with the First Dude – he apparently commented that they had a real life to go back to if she didn’t win; they haven’t spent the last 30 years trying to position themselves to be President. I don’t know what McCain, Obama or Biden will do if they don’t win – success outside of public life doesn’t seem to be what they want.
A.L.,
I certainly wouldn’t defend robo’s choice of terms, but I do understand getting a bit provoked by AJL’s ongoing condescenscion.
Democrats will vote for the Democrat. Republicans will vote for the Republican. That’s how it has always been.
John McCain and Joe Biden are politicians. They know their numbers, and they know Washington.
What is different about this election is culture. Where is America going, culturally?
This is where Barack Obama and Sarah Palin come in.
Some say race is a factor against Obama, but I say it is the opposite: Obama has been propelled upwards by his skin color. The positive ‘racism’ (Black-Americans supporting him, White-Americans feeling guilty about the legacy of slavery) far outweighs the few remaining pockets of negative racism (traditional bigotry) that still exist in our country.
Whereas Black-Americans account for 12 percent of America, women number about 51 percent.
This is where America’s reaction to Sarah Palin gets interesting. It is not only sexism at play, but regionalism too. Keep in mind that America’s reaction could be vastly different from the media’s reaction, which tries to intervene in how America thinks and observes for itself.
For the last decade, American women have been trying to become either the fifth ‘Manhattanite’ cast member of ‘Sex and the City’ or a ‘Desperate Housewife’ on Wisteria Lane. The White male executives who created, packaged and marketed these female stereotypes have made plenty of money as women across America spent time and money trying to become ‘Carrie Bradshaw’. But somehow, these wanna-be’s never lived it up as glamorously.
Sarah Palin is all about God, Family, Country and Shot-Guns. She is a completely New American Woman. She was not constructed by a Public Relations agency in either New York City or Los Angeles. She is not a Hollywood creation. Sarah Palin is simply a product of American small-town wholesomeness: happy childhood, hard work, self-discipline and a bright, and almost chirpy, outlook on life.
Sarah is not the high-maintenance, drama-seeking, bulimia-suffering fragile caricature of a working woman as peddled by TV.
Her husband, Todd Palin, is not a neurotic metro-sexual obsessing over the price of organic arugula, or whining about his commitment phobias to his shrink. He is a man’s man, and frankly, a woman’s man: just your regular American guy—wholesome and uncomplicated.
Sarah and Todd are American ‘retro’, but it is retro made cool all over again. They are a brand of Americana that has been tested and true—genuine, confident and mature.
Something happened to the Obama brand on the way to the election. It is as if the fashion gods decided that “Didn’t you know? No one wears Obama after Labour Day.â€
Once exotic and different, the Obama brand has been turned into something weird and creepy. “Obama’s Witnesses,†“Obama’s Blue-Shirts,†“The Obama Youth Fraternity Leagueâ€â€¦Plus, after the initial swooning over him, most people still think that there’s something “off†about Obama; as if he’s hollow, or hiding something.
Today, the Obama brand has become decidedly “uncoolâ€. That’s why people tuned out from watching him debate McCain.
On the other hand, Americans are discovering that they are intrigued by Sarah Palin. The TV pundits may want to spin things their way, but the surest measure of who won the Vice-Presidential Debate is that, at the end, the vast majority of viewers walked away from their TV sets and said to themselves, “I’d like to see more of Sarah Palin—unfiltered and uncut.â€
The Obama camp may be celebrating too early. There are still plenty of people out there that haven’t made up their mind, and Obama’s triumphalism may begin to sound like arrogance, and he’s already been accused of that.
This is indeed a culturally interesting time to be an American.
“Biden was smoothly spinning – and even his most outrageously stupid statements – like putting NATO troops into Lebanon (how’d that work out last time, Joe?) – were delivered with assurance and forceful confidence.”
So is being able to stand before the American People and spiel off idiotic and clueless statement a plus or a minus?
Sounds like you are giving him points for being a consumate snakeoil salesman
I understand you can now get arugula at McDonalds, which sounds pretty mainstream to me, in the salad. Can someone explain the faux populist obsession over the stuff? (The odds are literally 4:1 in my favor that mike is posting from an urban or suburban area.)
The small-town wholesomeness shtick is a fantasy. Checked out where the meth labs are?
“The small-town wholesomeness shtick is a fantasy. Checked out where the meth labs are?”
Of course it is. Mostly in the eyes of the aforementioned elitists.
That’s the reason the sleaze that keeps getting slung at Palin seems to bounce. (And if people had been paying attention, off of Clinton too, though with him there was a tad more justification, I think….) There’s wheat, and there’s chaff.
And then there’s fertilizer, and that’s where Obama/Biden comes in….
“The small-town wholesomeness shtick is a fantasy. Checked out where the meth labs are?”
And then check out where the market is.
Of course it makes sense for the labs to be out in the sticks. easier to do in isolated areas and much easier to tap off liquid ammonia. Not many tanks of that stuff sitting around in the center of big cities.
“Democrats will vote for the Democrat. Republicans will vote for the Republican. That’s how it has always been”
Not true I am the Grandson of a man named Stonewall Jackson Puckett, want to guess how many generations of Democrats in that side of the family?
When I moved to Iowa I and had to register to vote, I decided to register with the Party I had been voting for in the National Elections, back home being registered Democrat. meant you could vote in the local elections, there not being any Republican Primaries. 😉
I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian I have brother who I consider a Bleeding Hear Liberal for years we have argued over politics.
This year? We are both NOT voting for Obama. At the first we agreed that Obama was IOO wrong for the Country but we thought he did have character and integrity, but research since of his escapades in Cook County Chicago Politics have convinced me my first impression was mistaken.
I don’t know of ANY off my relatives back home who are going to vote for the Party they are registered in
Either for Presideent or Senator, they have always been crazy about Mitch McConnel
Nope Democrats don’t ALWAYS vote for Democrats, sometimes they look at the Big City Democrats and think
Those folks don’t even care what people like me think and they probably don’t even think I CAN think, but that fella in the Other Party? He sounds like I thnk.
“#9 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 6:43 am on Oct 04, 2008
I understand you can now get arugula at McDonalds, which sounds pretty mainstream to me, in the salad. Can someone explain the faux populist obsession over the stuff? ”
Well let us look at the quote shall we?
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?†the senator said. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.â€
The state of Iowa, for all of its vast food production, does not have a Whole Foods, a leading natural and organic foods market. The closest? Omaha, Minneapolis or Kansas City.
Now this was in Adel, Iowa population 3435 at the 2000 census.
They probably eat leaf lettuce, from the garden most likely blackseeded simpson, but arugula? Never heard of it. Whole foods? Never heard of it.
If anyone DID have arugula in their backyard garden, they might not even know it, they would probably call it Rocket.
At least that was what the seed packs in my Dad’s Farm Store were marked by BS Simpson was almost all of the sales.
The guy was clueless about who he was talking to.
bq. I have brother who I consider a Bleeding Hear Liberal
Meaning, what? He is opposed to torturing women who have an abortion? He’s to the Right of Genghis Khan?
Nice little story but utterly meaningless in the grand scheme.
After re-watching many parts of the debate I am now convinced Palin was sent up there to seduce American male voters over the TV. She sure worked it with her hair flips and “shout-outs” and folksy little winks. It was more “Starsearch” than Starsearch itself. And guess what? Most people ain’t buyin’ this year, thankfully (although it’s a catch-22 because the reason people won’t stand for this fluff and flirtation anymore is that things look so grim for most Mainstreeters….and regardless of her behavior and affectations, McCain and Palin and Republicans care not one single whit about them, in fact they have abused their good will, and they know it now that just because you act like they do doesn’t mean you think alike and believe in the same things).
In some ways it was a disgraceful performance that demeans the office of VP and insults the electorate.
“And then check out where the market is.”
By and large it’s in the same sticks.
It’s not an issue of a lack of rural dental care.
_Checked out where the meth labs are?_
“Mexico?”:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct032207attach.html
#14 vista- ” McCain and the Republicans care not one single whit for them” Damn, that would be a relief- I have about had it with Government “caring” about me. Seems like every time I am “cared about”, my wallet gets thinner. Last time it was about $200,000 thinner as my “caring” Democratic County Gov. downzoned my property.
Of course this “caring” was just great for the “environment” even though it meant this laborer had to borrow a large sum to build his house instead of funding it from a land sale, very probably eliminating any chance of retirement.
And of course there was the time my State Insurance Commissioner “cared “about me by mandating insurance companies cover all sorts of irrelevant issues and consequently driving almost all of them out of the state, leaving me with a choice of $$$ insurance I could not afford, or no insurance. Think a healthy guy could buy just a simple catastrophic policy? So sorry, I got “cared” about.
The most dangerous politicians of all are the save the world types. I’d rather have a pragmatic bastard any day.
Hey Robo – if you think I’m _opposed_ to a populist remaking of American politics, you’re just not f**king paying attention. I don;t mind getting slammed for what I say, but it irritates the hell out of me when people who don’t have the attention span to read what I plainly write walk by and toss bricks.
A.L.
Andrew – a few responses – I’ve been meaning to go unpack the old Yglesias “hey city people are a community too” and eviscerate it, so thanks for reminding me.
No, rural America is not a hotbed of virtue. But it is the repository of the founding myths that define America, and one of the challenges we face today is that a lot of people want to redefine those myths into more urban, European ones – and a lot of people persist in clinging – bitterly – to the old ones.
A.L.
I’m not going to disagree, entirely. At the time of the Revolution, the colonies were mostly rural, although that hotbed of sedition, Boston, was not. And then there were the centuries of expansion, and the national myth of manifest destiny and the frontier.
I’m just not sure why these myths are so tenacious. How many people on this thread are posting from a farmhouse? From the porch of the only general store in the county? We enjoy freedom of movement; people who eant to live in small-town America can go there any time. They don’t. We’ve got exurbanites and suburbanites trying to tap into some sort of prelapsarian America. I might be so crass as to point out that their picture is invariably all-white and all-Christian. (I don’t see the urban outlook as European, except in the exaggerated view of its enemies who need to place it in opposition to American. Multi-ethnic immigration is not a European concept and came to New York City generations before it came to London.)
Palin, of course, ties into this. She and her running mate, the son and grandson of admirals married into a fortune, are out there trying to paint their opponent, whose family was once on food stamps, as “elitist”. When it’s time to pick a president, there’s all the contempt for “book l’arnin’” in favor of truthiness. No one would pick an oncologist that way. The generally perceived need for someone who understands what a credit default swap is, or the history of Sunni vs. Shia, at this moment is a misfortune for the Republican ticket. Cry me an urban river.
Yes, Andrew – but here’s the issue. As I hassled Trent Telenko for a long time ago, our politics is fundamentally (and thankfully) un-European. European politics is rigidly hierarchical, a combination of administrative/ educational meritocracy and nepotism.
I worry a lot about American politics going that way; you may suggest that you want a highly-trained oncologist but there is no similar linkage between training and good outcomes in politics.
That’s part of the struggle we’re going through right now; people who see themselves as having won the educational/achievement tournament expect that they will control things; others disagree.
A.L.
_I’m just not sure why these myths are so tenacious._
First of all, you should ask yourself how they became myths at all. Myths don’t come out of nowhere: they have roots. In fact, every myth has two sets of roots: one in the human mind, and the other in a given culture.
The cowboy myth is the American version of the older myths built around knights errant: the mounted warrior going into the wilderness to encounter danger and adventure. He fights with prowess and honor against those who are either savage or evil — that is, either of an alien civilization, or those who have betrayed the ideals of his own.
If you look at those myths, in turn, you will find that the writers who composed the legends and books of ethics were looking back at early Germanic warrior kings, but also at Roman sources (where the _equites_ were also a heroic class). And if you follow that back, you’ll find the German side traces to the very earliest material we have on them; and the Roman side through the Greeks, where the Homeric heroes often enjoyed the formulaic praise: “Breaker of Horses.”
Why are they tenacious? Because for untold thousands of years, these qualities have been the qualities that allowed warriors to forge a space in the world for themselves, so they might have civilization and peace for their families; and defend that space, that civilization, those families, against all comers.
These myths are at once The West, in its living incarnation; and yet the vision of what it means to be a part of the West in a particularly American way.
I pray they never weaken. You ought to pray so too: you may yet need these things.
Whether you do or not, though, it should not surprise you. It should be no surprise to find a myth surviving in the suburbs, when it has already survived the transition from Greece to Rome, from warrior bands to medieval poets, when it was split into English and French and Spanish and Portugese and German and still retained its essential quality. The chiefly-English, Scot, Irish and Welsh settlers moving west with their copies of _Ivanhoe_ encountered a culture moving north from Spain whose myths were almost the same: and the ease with which they united across the Southwest is testiment to that fact. For example: almost all the “Western” horse furniture, the classic cowboy stuff, is of Spanish descent. If you look at the roots of the names of those things you will find the knights of the _reconquista_ behind them.
This is also why generations of immigrants came to America and found that this myth was a way they could readily fit into the culture. Take a look at the filming crew behind _High Noon_, and you’ll see how instantly Europeans could grasp what was at work here, and braid themselves into it if they chose.
Frankly, I think the Europeans will eventually come back to us — not that we shall follow them. I think I understand why they are where they are, but I believe that they too will yet find that they need these things. America preserves them.
Ok, time for an actual small-town gal to weigh in here.
I’m not writing this from a farmhouse; just an 1178 square foot 1935 bungalow in a medium-sized town. (Under 150,000). I was born and raised in a much smaller place. (Under 20,000 at that time, I’m guessing- and it was the county seat!)
I don’t normally like to wade into things like this, but what I’ve been reading on this thread is pure, 100% all-american bigotry. This presidential race has created an all-new get-out-of-jail-free, hate’em-and-look-cool ethnicity: the small town dweller.
Ah, yes: since some small towns have meth labs, that *of course* means we’re mostly stoned and tootheless in our backwater cesspools.
(Didn’t some people used to say that certain groups “had rhythm” and “liked watermellon”?)
And of course, we’re *all* “white and christian.”
(Guess I’ll have to go tell that to the members of the two synagogues in my home town- and the Hari Krishna temple just up the road. Ooh, and my parent’s Pakistani and Indian doctors will want to know. And when I’m finished there, I’ll run back here and tell all the members of our local synagogues, mosques and Mormon temples that it’s time to pack up and go.)
As for that “all white, all Christian” meme, consider this: Asra Q Nomani wrote her groundbreaking muslim/feminist work “Standing Alone In Mecca” while living in Morgantown, Wv- another small town. She moved back there to do it- after having been raised there.
Guess she just likes living in fear among toothless meth addicts.
Geez, people. I started reading Winds of Change because it was better than this. What has happened?
#23:
You do have a friend on the masthead.
I write from a log cabin on the Etowah river. I ride horses, sometimes train horses, when I’m not working for the military. I am glad that there’s internet access, even way out here; but the rest of what the cities have to offer, the cities can keep.
It’s good to meet you, though. I’m always glad to learn that there’s another of my sentiment out there. 🙂
Lynne –
I wouldn’t take it personally.
If Sarah Palin were, say, a diabetic, then of course the left would pronounce diabetics unfit for public office. In fact, they would declare that diabetics are awful, horrible people, and a colossal drain on public health resources. Their use of insulin would be compared to heroin addiction, and we would be told that it causes violence and dementia.
It would be considered an insult to the entire country (especially to women and minorities!) that a diabetic would even be called a human being.
I was trying to supply some correction to the Republican idea that small-town America is somehow more noble, better, than urban America. I don’t think this is a straw man I’m setting up. Palin thus:
The writer Palin (rather, her speechwriter) didn’t name was Westbrook Pegler, a notorious anti-Semite. Can you imagine if Joe Biden quoted Earl Browder?
Our factories aren’t in small towns. People are leaving our rural areas to find work. Have been for generations.
I’m not aware of anyone data that small towns are over-represented in our armed forces, although it’s possible.
The less populated parts of Idaho have become associated with our homegrown white supremacist movement. The Aryan Nations say they love our country, too. They just hate maybe a quarter of the people in it.
Incidentally, I don’t think that Morgantown, West Virginia is what Palin had in mind when she talked about small towns. As I’m sure you know, it’s home to WVU and Kerry ran much better there than WV-wide (although he still lost).
Outside some long-lost mythology of the knight-errant, I’m not sure what these special “small town” values are. I know everyone on my block. We have neighborhood parties. Of course, I happen to live in a 1900-square-foot 1916 house in a city of 150,000 myself. It just happens to be part of the SF Bay Area.
_Our factories aren’t in small towns._
A nontrivial number of them are. The textile industry in America is chiefly a small-town concern. So is the poultry industry — I am told that Gainesville, GA, is the leading exporter of chicken to the world. Cumming, GA, also has a large Tyson plant. It’s grown somewhat in recent years, but was a very small town in my youth (when the Tyson plant was still active, and a major employer).
_People are leaving our rural areas to find work._
The advent of the internet means that more people can remain in rural regions and work than have been able to do heretofore. I expect this trend to continue as telecommuting becomes more accepted, and as gas prices continue to rise. Being able to grow your own food is a real virtue in the modern environment, as is being able to supplement your family’s meat with game.
_I’m not aware of anyone data that small towns are over-represented in our armed forces, although it’s possible._
I’m not aware of data that breaks it down that finely either. However, there is data that suggests that “the northeast and California”:http://charts.technorati.com/posts/0VcZxm4P6jkZukwM6V0ALphNqiYNHJwWQXtuAf9iX6U%3D are vastly underrepresented in military recruiting. The South and the mountain West are the main regions for our military, with the midwest coming close to (a bit below) parity.
_Outside some long-lost mythology of the knight-errant, I’m not sure what these special “small town” values_ are.
My point is that it isn’t long lost, but a living tradition. Still, if you don’t understand it, may I suggest a few books by Louis L’amour? Consider it oppo research. You might even enjoy them. 🙂
Andrew, the elevator pitch version of those myths is simple – in a stable, closed, hierarchical society, people a) know their place and stick to it – what else is all that 19th century English literature about? – and b) they have no choice but accept the lot they are given.
America allows individuals to reinvent themselves – originally by moving out – by coming here and staking out a place in one of the small communities or literally, by moving out to the boondocks and scratching out a living.
The social order in America is supposed to be more fragile than the economic and political orders.
That’s less true than it was, and the social ‘winners’ are advocating – strongly – that is be even less true tomorrow than it is today, and that’s a big part of the social/political tension we’re seeing right now.
How’s that?
A.L.
The less populated parts of Idaho have become associated with our homegrown white supremacist movement. The Aryan Nations say they love our country, too. They just hate maybe a quarter of the people in it.
um, for every Militia Group and Neo Nazi party there is a Symbionese Liberation Army, a MOVE, or a group of Weathermen. All of which grew in highly populated urban areas.
My point being that extremism is not confined to only outlying territories.
Our factories aren’t in small towns.
You might want to take a look at industrial production in the Mid Ohio Valley before you make a blanket statement.
And, btw, if factory production is not in small towns, I don’t recall it being centered in urban areas, either.
I should point out that “factory” work helped put me through college. The place where I worked is still in operation, as well.
As I’m sure you know, it’s home to WVU and Kerry ran much better there than WV-wide (although he still lost).
So the redeeming feature of Morgantown is that it voted for Kerry?
Case closed, sir. You have proven my point.
A.J.Lazaraus is this website’s resident Twain, Sinclair Lewis and Edgar Lee Masters rolled into one. Shame for the hypocrisy!
The context here is that a Presidential candidate disrepespected working class (lunch pail) voters in small towns that have lost their job base. He wasn’t talking about rural voters, but “small” cities like Scranton, Erie, Flint, Youngstown, Decatur, and Duluth.
No, Lynne, the redeeming, or shall I say distinguishing, feature of Morgantown is that it’s a local intellectual center. It’s not surprising that it’s more ethnically diverse than most of the rest of West Virginia, and it’s not surprising that it’s more liberal politically.
America’s commitment to public education during the nineteenth century—the land grant colleges, the allocation of lands for public secondary schools in towns—was another way that we provided for social advancement, by providing for educational advancement.
Sarah Palin doesn’t score that high in taking advantage of this opportunity. She seems to come, instead, from the substratum that scorns and resents educational achievement. Obama is far more educated than his parents. Palin has no more formal education than her father, and likely less. I would think that it’s Obama who better fits the American Dream story, and that this would be obvious if he weren’t (half) black and raised partially outside the United States.
I certainly wouldn’t hold out America’s cities as more moral than the countryside, but as a city kid I’m resentful of the suggestion that it’s the other way around. Sarah Palin doesn’t believe human beings coexisted with dinosaurs because she lacked the opportunity to learn otherwise, but because she prefers and adopts a world view that’s wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance.
On another aspect of the same topic: Palin’s heartwarming story in the debate of Alaskan divestment from the Sudan was a fabrication. The bill didn’t pass and as governor, she opposed it. The mirror image of Leninists, and completely dishonorable.
I don’t know how you convict her of all this witchcraft, but I probably don’t have enough education to understand your spectral evidence.
Do you want to compare urban and rural drop-out rates, or would that be too much like dealing with facts?
All of the dinosaur quotes I can find go back to one source, the liberal Wasilla teacher Philip Munger. There’s no sign of any denials, though.
The rural dropout rate is halfway in between urban (higher) and suburban (lower). Is there a reason you didn’t supply the statistics (and/or a link) yourself? College enrollment is lowest in rural areas, as far as I could tell.
Andrew J. Lazarus doesn’t believe that Sarah Palin believes human beings coexisted with dinosaurs because he lacked the opportunity to learn otherwise, but because he prefers and adopts a world view that’s wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance.
Hey, Shad, so far on Palin as a Young Earth Creationist, we have one witness who says yes, and zero evidence against. What’s your problem?
bq. She seems to come, instead, from the substratum that scorns and resents educational achievement.
Not to mention being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion.
My, the liberal tolerance is out in full force tonight. No prejudice, no bigotry, no dog whistles round here, no sir!
At least this election season should put paid to the notion that the left cares about anything but their own sanctimony.
Andrew, is your contention that the acceptable standard of evidence to treat a claim against a candidate as serious, credible, and worthy of propagation is that
1. someone politically opposed to said candidate made a wholly unsubstantiated post on a blog about an incident that supposedly happened a decade or so ago, and
2. that the candidate has failed to explicitly deny it?
If not, I would ask why you to explain why you took such a claim seriously, treated it as credible, and propagated it in this thread.
If so, I stand by my assessment that you’re a much better example of someone who prefers and adopts a world view that’s wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance than Governor Palin is.
The Creationism report has had lots of play in the media; if it were false, the campaign has had plenty of opportunity to deny it. They haven’t. In an Alaska debate, she parroted the Creationist line of teaching both evolution and creationism. (She also kept a campaign promise not to attempt to introduce creationism into the Alaska schools.)
Now, if you just had to guess if Palin believes in evolution or creationism, which way would you bet?
I haven’t seen any direct responses by O’s team regarding the claim that traveling on an Indonesian passport meant he abrogated his US citizenship, if Indonesia did in fact disallow multiple citizenship at the time.
Not sure it’d be allowed to matter even if true; not sure what that would have to do with this thread, either.
Look, AJL, once you grant the possibility of God-performed miracles you implicitly grant the possibility of God creating the whole universe three milliseconds ago, etc., etc. Ergo, everyone who believes in a God that performs miracles is riding the short bus as far as you are concerned.
This we more or less already knew.
As a devout agnostic, all I can say is: Meh. Any chance we can get back on topic? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
bq. Andrew, the elevator pitch version of those myths is simple – in a stable, closed, hierarchical society, people a) know their place and stick to it – what else is all that 19th century English literature about? – and b) they have no choice but accept the lot they are given.
AL, this is a bait and switch compared with what you were talking about earlier. As AJL pointed out himself, multi-ethnic immigration is a New York thing – a quintessential American thing – and not a European thing. As I read it, AJL – and many on the left – are refusing to buy into the “rural America is the BEST America” narrative, but that’s _not_ the same thing as wanting 19th century European stratification.
bq. America allows individuals to reinvent themselves – originally by moving out – by coming here and staking out a place in one of the small communities or literally, by moving out to the boondocks and scratching out a living.
Or by moving to New York or LA to “make” it as a writer or an actor or a singer? Or moving to SF to embrace a sexual identity that they couldn’t back home? Or by heading to college to start a career they couldn’t back in a small town?
What on earth makes you think rural America has any kind of monopoly on people being able to reinvent themselves?
bq. The social order in America is supposed to be more fragile than the economic and political orders. That’s less true than it was, and the social ‘winners’ are advocating – strongly – that is be even less true tomorrow than it is today, and that’s a big part of the social/political tension we’re seeing right now.
Really? Who, exactly, is advocating this among the social “winners”, AL? Can we have some links or quotes here?
Chris backs me up better than I do myself. As far as social “winners”, I think that Armed Liberal’s argument is better explained in his #21. The coastal highly-educated elites have (as I understand him) decided that they should also control political power.
I think this is an oversimplification. One of America’s strengths is that, in theory, you can come out of any part of the country with education and prospects. Look at Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester: he’s an organic farmer. The governor, Brian Schweitzer, (also a Dem) was a rancher. Unlike Sarah Palin, he’s lived overseas, even speaks Arabic.
What distinguishes Palin is what I called the Authenticity of Ignorance. She taps into a view that a little small-town common sense (whatever the hell that is) substitutes for reading a newspaper, much less all of them. I can’t speak for the entire coastal elite, but I’d prefer that the conservatives and pro-life people who are elected know something about the world outside their town and their state (especially one whose economy bears no relation to anywhere else in the country). Moreover, that world view tends to be unsympathetic to concerns of non-whites, non-Christians, non-straights, and (lately) non-saber-rattlers.
Somehow this thread reminds me of Winston Churchill’s frank remark on the traditions of the Royal Navy: “Rum, buggery, and the lash.” Morgantown notwithstanding, the tradition Palin is standing up for is, like the delegates of the Republican National Convention, overwhelmingly white and evangelical—nothing like the Lower East Side of Manhattan. But you know, Manhattan is America, too.
“The writer Palin (rather, her speechwriter) didn’t name was Westbrook Pegler, a notorious anti-Semite. Can you imagine if Joe Biden quoted Earl Browder?”
Please. What if Biden quoted
H. L. Mencken, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Adams, H.G. Wells, Edgar Degas, Denis Diderot, Theodore Dreiser, T. S. Eliot, Immanuel Kant, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Richard Wagner, Bobby Fischer…
The list could go on and on- anti-semites all, to some degree or another. In fact, I’d bet you’ve quoted or admired the work of a few of these people, does that make you a closet Klansman?
“As I read it, AJL – and many on the left – are refusing to buy into the “rural America is the BEST America” narrative, but that’s not the same thing as wanting 19th century European stratification.”
Problem is, you’re tilting at windmills. I don’t think anyone here is saying that Rural is best, only that the opposite is also not true, despite the disdain of many urbanites for rural folk.
Your last comment, AJL, really cracks me up. You make it clear that what matters to you is if you can check off that-
a) You’re college educated
b) You’ve traveled abroad
c) You read lots and lots of newspapers
d) You think that opportunity only comes from advanced education
Well, I thought America was about opportunity for hard work, persistence, and yes, common sense. I’ve known too many people with advanced degrees, and in some cases Mensa membership, to think that being college educated or “smart” means much by itself. Those two items tell you near zero about someone’s wisdom or values. Trust me, I know- as a major city born and bred, college educated, well traveled, well read person, it’s not enough. I’ve seen both sides- and I’m not sure I wouldn’t say the Rural folks aren’t more moral, either.
“She taps into a view that a little small-town common sense (whatever the hell that is) substitutes for reading a newspaper, much less all of them.”
Talk about authenticity of ignorance. She majored in journalism (I know, it wasn’t Columbia, so maybe in your book, it doesn’t count), I think she reads papers. In fact, her appetite for reading is well documented in a biography of her, well prior to this being a campaign issue.
Oh, and I did want to comment on the original post- I think people ended up seeing what they wanted to see. Notice how pro-Obama/Biden people aren’t talking about the ridiculous thinks Biden says (Lebanon, Article 1), or are minimizing them, even though had Palin said something similar, she’d have been mercilessly mocked. I didn’t think Palin did all that well, either, but the treatment of her makes it hard to judge apples to apples, as Biden is let have a pass repeatedly for similar (or in some eyes worse) things.
Also, your argument about the populist narrative is interesting, but off base here. She isn’t Dave, or anything like it, at least not now. She’s got a career in politics, has gained experience far superior (objectively) to the front man of the opposing ticket, yet she’s still considered a populist without any credentials in your book. Being Governor of even a small state means she’s dealt with the mechanisms of government, and worked within them. She’s not fomenting a revolution here, it’s that she has a virtually incomparable record as a reformer in modern politics, yet she gets no credit for that. Point out to me anyone in American politics who’s gone after corruption in their own party and been as successful as she’s been in Alaska.
Oh, and there’s no way that either Biden or Palin could “win the election” in that debate. They could lose it, or help it, but “win” it? Nah.
I’m also not sure you’re using the phrase “l’esprit d’escalier” properly. I’m not seeing the revelation that hit you later. You had some further thoughts about it, but that’s not really the same thing.
AJL: Your assumption that Palin is hiding evidence of creationism shows how completely and utterly out of touch you are on this issue. Most Americans believe in some form of creationism, including Democrats. A vast majority believe it should be taught in schools. “Link”:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Real interesting OT conversation on Real America.
One obvious question arises, though. Some on this thread have sought to publish their bona fides by making note of their place of residence or upbringing.
So, where does the Armed Liberal live? Where did he grow up? Are his insights into this topic largely based on a movie or other indirect (and even fictionalized) ideals of True America? Is this just another example of “David Brooks” syndrome, a coastal elitist aggrandizing a fictional America for political purposes, and in the process demeaning it?
Douglas-
bq. Problem is, you’re tilting at windmills. I don’t think anyone here is saying that Rural is best, only that the opposite is also not true, despite the disdain of many urbanites for rural folk.
But that’s exactly what Palin, and many of her supporters, _are_ saying – that she’s better qualified to win the election than Biden because she’s representative of “real” small town America. That’s what you yourself are saying when you say
bq. I’ve seen both sides- and I’m not sure I wouldn’t say the Rural folks aren’t more moral, either.
I think it’s worth putting all this in the context of the last 8 years, because I’ve been told, point-blank, by Republican voters, that they felt more comfortable with GWB, and that they might feel more comfortable with Sarah Palin, because he/she understands their values, and understands “Main Street”. I think the evidence is pretty clear that such an approach has been a disaster for the country, and while we can argue AL’s earlier assertion that “there is no similar linkage between training and good outcomes in politics,” I think it’s definitely been proven false that insight into the American heartland (if strip-mall suburbia can be called such) is definitely not a guarantee of good outcome, either.
I think this is a really interesting thread, and really appreciate everyone’s participation…it’s got me thinking kind of seriously about some things, and I hope others as well.
Let me try and do a new post that captures my sense of the discussion and let’s see if we can take this and play it out some more.
A.L.
There seems to be some confusion here about what makes someone a good person and what makes someone qualified to be President of the United States.
In this day and age, I’d say the first three are prerequisites (not the only ones) for [Vice] President. No one would think twice about making a similar list for a neurosurgeon, or even a family doctor. Only in politics do we go through the motions of believing that bouncing around college, never traveling, and knowing nothing about foreign policy is not disqualifying, as long as you have those vague Main Street Values (which, as I said above, is probably mere code for White Christian Evangelical).
I don’t believe I have ever claimed (d), because it is not true. In rare cases, opportunity comes from winning the lottery or being able to dunk a basketball. What I do believe is that advanced education is the most consistent and generally available way for Americans to better their economic and social prospects.
Andrew, I asked a simple question of you in comment #37 to try to pin down your argument:
In comment #38, you seemed to implicitly affirm that this is, in fact, your contention. Could you please explicitly do so, to make sure I did not misinterpret your comment?
Thanks.
No, Shad. The incident in question has now been written up in the LA Times (and elsewhere). It’s not confined to a couple hostile bloggers. There’s somewhat corroboratory undisputed evidence from her 2006 campaign (see #38) where she refused point-blank to deny being a Creationist. I’d say this creates a presumption in the absence of any denial.
Unlike Barack Obama, right? “Christopher Hitchens”:http://www.slate.com/id/2181460 would ask that question, given Obama’s long membership in a creationist church.
I can imagine your outrage if someone were to demand that Obama deny that he is a Creationist. Or an Afrocentrist.
Yes, unlike Obama. At least according to _Nature_. From the magazine’s website, featuring a written Q&A between itself & Obama:
Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?
Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.
Well, Andrew, it sure looks like your criteria for spreading rumors is:
1. Someone starts the rumor (the liberal blogger)
2. Someone repeats the rumor (the liberal newspaper reporting what the liberal blogger said)
3. The target does not explicitily deny the rumor
As I said earlier, that you so readily buy into these sorts of things makes you a much better example of someone who prefers and adopts a world view that’s wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance than Governor Palin is. You’ve willingly entered a bubble where rumors become fact not because they’re substantiated, but simply because they’re repeated.
You display the very Authenticity of Ignorance you claim to decry in comment #41.
Dont talk about Obama’s church. Its racist.
Chris:
“Douglas-
Problem is, you’re tilting at windmills. I don’t think anyone here is saying that Rural is best, only that the opposite is also not true, despite the disdain of many urbanites for rural folk.
But that’s exactly what Palin, and many of her supporters, are saying – that she’s better qualified to win the election than Biden because she’s representative of “real” small town America. That’s what you yourself are saying when you say
I’ve seen both sides- and I’m not sure I wouldn’t say the Rural folks aren’t more moral, either.”
Well, first, there’s a reason why I presented that sentiment as a conditionally modified opinion, and not as a fact. I’ll even go so far as to back it up to some extent by noting that people in rural areas and small towns are consistently more polite than people in and around big cities. That’s not insignificant.
That said, I didn’t declare that just being from a rural location gave someone moral absolute superiority over someone from an urban area, not at all. I don’t think you can give me a quote from anyone of significance that is saying that either. I do not accept your statement as fact, so I’d be appreciative if you could back it up in some way.
AJL:
“In this day and age, I’d say the first three are prerequisites (not the only ones) for [Vice] President.”
Only in #2 do you talk specifically about the Vice Presidency in any detail, and not in the same way, so I’m not sure how you expect me to buy into the idea that’s what you were getting at, because you’re previous comments do seem aimed at the general population of the flyover states.
“No one would think twice about making a similar list for a neurosurgeon, or even a family doctor. Only in politics do we go through the motions of believing that bouncing around college, never traveling, and knowing nothing about foreign policy is not disqualifying, as long as you have those vague Main Street Values (which, as I said above, is probably mere code for White Christian Evangelical).”
Well, leaving out the issue of anti-religious bigotry in the last sentence, and your dramatically hyperbolic (at best) description of Palin, I think your comparison to Neurosurgeon is a poor choice. The Vice Presidency isn’t about knowing about foreign cultures, per se (even if travel was any assurance that you gained that understanding -I think not), nor is it about highly specialized details of a particular field, excepting perhaps law, but we’ve seen what a Government full of lawyers can do for us (ugh). It’s an office demanding of a good understanding of general concepts and strategies, not one that requires tremendous specialization of skill set and knowledge base, as a neurosurgeon. I suspect one could be a world class neurosurgeon, and be lousy at just about everything else in life. An executive leader (President, VP) can’t be like that. I’d liken it more to Architect. Architects have to have a good knowledge of specifics (details, particular systems), but not at the level of the specialists who engineer, and build these things. He also needs to have the ability to work in the larger, strategic sense of design, constantly checking between the macro and micro to ensure compatibility and continuity with his original design intent. You might be surprised to learn that some of the greatest architects never went to architecture school. Tadao Ando never went to architecture school, spent some time as a boxer and truck driver before going into architecture, but has become one of the great living architects, a Pritzker Prize winner, no less. I will grant you that he did travel some a little later in the process (to look at more buildings), but there are plenty of other examples of people who wouldn’t fit your formula for success, and in fact, plenty of people who never should have bothered to go to college, even though they passed and got degreed.
As for the idea that reading newspapers is a pre-requisite, I’d disagree. I hardly pick up a paper any more, and when I do, I’m more likely to read the sports page than anything else. The internet has given me a much better interface to the news, and the underlying facts than any paper could, and most of that isn’t from News sites. If you asked me which paper I read, I’d answer “none”. That doesn’t mean I’m ill informed, it means the question was the wrong question, and speaks to the interviewers lack of understanding the current world we live in, and their inability to look forward, or even at the world around them and understand it. It’s called the dinosaur media for a reason.
So, after all that, I think it’s important to note, as you seem reticent to do, that Palin did hold several offices of varying types, over the course of a 16 year period, and seems to have performed to a very high level in each of those positions. Add to that the incredible fact that she unseated incumbents in the Mayoral and Gubernatorial races, and it’s a pretty impressive record, politically. Objectively, it’s a better record than Barack Obama’s, but to you, he’s eminently qualified, and she’s not. Where’s the sense in that position?
You really should go back through your own comments and try to see them as another might understand them, instead of rolling confidently along in the fervent belief that you’re correct. It could be enlightening.
Douglas, if Palin is reading news sources on the Internet instead of a newspaper, that’s a fine substitute. But somehow beneath it all, I suspect we both know, she didn’t do that either. If she had, they’d let her show off her knowledge in a press conference. So far, she’s worked from a script.
I didn’t know the story of Tadao Ando, so I did a little Googling.
You know, some people can do that, when they know just what they want, and more power to them. Harry Truman’s political education went much the same way. Do you see, though, that Ando was acquiring relevant knowledge from an early age, even if it wasn’t in an academic environment? But the President of the United States needs to know where Pakistan is on Day One, and a member of the City Council of Wasilla (when she was first elected, it had fewer inhabitants than Berkeley High School) does not. So whatever magical skills she picked up there, they don’t qualify her to be President.
If you don’t like my belief that Main Street Values is a code word for something else, perhaps you would like to elaborate yourself. Today, McCain’s brother called Northern Virginia, where McCain is trailing badly, a “communist country”. I guess it lacks those Main Street Values. Meanwhile elsewhere in Virginia the leader of a country Republican Party said Obama joked that Obama would re-paint the White House black and put up a star-and-crescent flag. That, my friends, is some Main Street Values we can believe in!
#48:
Just remember Mark Twain: “If you don’t read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed.”
#56:
“If you don’t like my belief that Main Street Values is a code word for something else, perhaps you would like to elaborate yourself.”
Perhaps he would; but I pointed you in the direction of the myth, its foundations, and why it was important at some length. You dismissed it in a phrase as “some long-lost mythology,” which misses the point that it is a living mythology that happens to have ancient roots.
When Gov. Palin says that Sen. Obama “is not a man who sees America as you see America and I see America,” she’s speaking to that very issue. The difference is what I meant when I said that “for untold thousands of years, these qualities have been the qualities that allowed warriors to forge a space in the world for themselves, so they might have civilization and peace for their families; and defend that space, that civilization, those families, against all comers. These myths are at once The West, in its living incarnation; and yet the vision of what it means to be a part of the West in a particularly American way.”
That view of America is to a place, a space in the world, with a unique take on an ancient set of values. These values are heroic when they are martial — to carve a space in the world for a civilization and its families, and defend it. The values are also heroic when they are pacific — to take responsibility for you own part of that space in the world, and your particular family, to feed them and clothe them with your own efforts, and leave both your part of the space and your family better off when you die than when you were born.
The values are heroic, but the American expression makes them available to everyone — not, as in Europe, to an upper class alone; not, as most places (and as you have mistakenly asserted) to a single ethnic group; but to anyone who will join the effort. This is why I pointed out that first-generation Eastern Europeans could come to Hollywood and film _High Noon_, and in so doing be as American as anyone living.
Now, you may not like the claim that Sen. Obama will put up a crescent-and-star flag at the White House, but there’s no dodging the fact that his self-described mentor in Hawaii, “Frank,” was a member of the Communist Party. There’s no getting past the fact that Saul Alinsky, who set up the ‘community organizing’ framework that Sen. Obama chose for his career, was a Marxist who dedicated his book on the subject to Lucifer. There’s no getting around the fact that Bill Ayers, who picked then-community-organizer Obama to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was a terrorist who advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government in order to effect a Marxist revolution — indeed, they split with a Maoist organization because they felt that the war should begin _immediately_, whereas the more moderate Marxists wanted to wait until they had something to replace the USA with before they started killing people. Sen. Obama has chosen to associate with these people all along. Marxists have furnished his basic philosophical furniture, and his chief support.
He’s also chosen to associate with the Rev. Mr. Wright, who is an entirely different sort of person. This is a man who — in my opinion, at least — shows how an American can criticize the nation in the harshest terms without breaking that basic, supernatural sense of loyalty to ‘defend the space in which the civilization exists’ that is required by the ancient heroic ethic.
There’s no doubt that the Rev. Mr. Wright has some serious complaints with America, its history and traditions, and basic social systems. But it’s also true that he’s fought for us: as a Marine, as a Navy Corpsman. He’s proven his faith to the system, and any man who has done as much can say whatever he wants and deserve a respectful hearing. The military is certainly not the only way to do this, and military service won’t answer for outright disloyalty or treason; but those who have shown their faith through personal hardship and sacrifice are well-positioned to criticize.
Even the best nation needs a certain amount of faithful criticism. Unlike the other connections, the Rev. Mr. Wright is a man I can respect whether or not we agree. I think his theology is suspect, and I don’t buy his criticisms, but I kind of like the guy — listening to his extended remarks shows not just passion but humor, and it is clear that he is ‘one of us.’ An angry one of us, but one of us all the same.
Sen. Obama shows no such signs. I wouldn’t trust him to be alone with my child, and that’s the main thing I want to know a President will do. I want to know he’ll faithfully keep the watch.
In any event, that’s what the values are: a heroic ethic based on ancient traditions, but melded with uniquely American aspects, available to anyone willing to join it and take it up. This is why some first-generation immigrants are more American than anyone; and some people, though born and raised here, never really get it.
Grim.
Yawn. Compared to McCain, Obama’s “associations” over the years look more like the 7 dwarfs than anything else. This boogeyman just ain’t rearing it’s head this halloween.
bq. I wouldn’t trust him to be alone with my child, and that’s the main thing I want to know a President will do.
If this doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what else does.
I recently realized that you’re commentary here against Obama is so visceral, personal and in many ways irrational that there’s simply no reason to take it seriously. Look at all the space you’ve taken just to put lipstick and makeup on the pig that is your prejudice against him. Believe me, it is not working, unless you’re the type to think Palin was great in the debate.
mark – Touche!
“David Bernstein at Volokh”:http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_28-2008_10_04.shtml#1223178667 comments on Ayers and Obama:
Exactly – the familiar is unthreatening, and for some people, vice versa. It is possible to be wealthy, well-traveled, well-educated – and yet be a perfect provincial bigot.
Of course, because to the progressive elite a conservative is not only comparable to a terrorist, but worse. Terrorists are imagined as having all sorts of understandable and even laudable goals, whereas conservatives are just brutish and bigoted, with no redeeming value whatsoever.
The more I think about it, Grim, the more I am at a loss to understand your comment about Obama and your children.
I can think of a couple of reasons why someone might not want to allow their children to be exposed to a person. The most obvious is that they’re a dangerous criminal. Obama is obviously not that. The next is that they might somehow influence your child’s thinking in a way that you find disagreeable or in conflict with the things you are trying to teach them. Absent a more specific explanation for this comment, I will assume this for the moment.
Aside from the fact that this second concern reeks of a deep distrust in your children’s ability to reason or think on their own in the absence of your influence (which is something I would classify as failed parenting), it also suggests that you are under the delusion that you can shield them from the “bad things” in the world.
Vista: remember when I said “Act well, be welcome”?
Verb. sap.
OK, Glen, doing your duty to the cause I see by attempting to resurrect the Specter of Ayers.
Let’s take a closer look at Sarah Palins much more recent associates, the Alaska Independence Party.
Her husband Todd was a member, with a brief exception, from 1995 until 2002, according to the Division of Elections in Alaska.
“Here are a few more salient points:”:http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/palins_attack_on_obamas_patrio.php#more
bq. In 1994, Palin attended the group’s annual convention, according to witnesses who spoke to ABC News’ Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group’s 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.
bq. The founder of the AIP was a man named Joe Vogler. Here’s what he had to say in a 1991 interview, only a few years before Palin attended its convention: “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government.”
bq. He also said this: “And I won’t be buried under their damn flag. I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.”
bq. Vogler has also said: “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
Vista:
I am not, here, trying to convince AJL (and certainly not you) to vote against Sen. Obama. I’m trying to explain to him, since he asked, just what this ethic is that he finds so mysterious. Whether that alters your behavior or not is beside the point, so long as we understand each other.
You’re looking for reasons to ‘explain’ my ‘comment,’ but you ignore the actual one laid out. I don’t think he can be trusted with the duty. I don’t think that it’s important to him to defend this particular space, this particular civilization, these particular children.
I do believe that Sen. McCain, Sen. Biden, Gov. Palin, or even the Rev. Mr. Wright would take it seriously. I don’t think that Sen. Obama, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, or “Frank” have it as a high priority. What matters to them is that America should “Change.” Well, change takes lots of forms; and as they say, you have to break a few eggs along the way.
That’s not what I want in a President.
As for my being irrational, nothing since Aristotle first laid out his philosophy has contradicted his claim that a man’s soul has both rational and irrational parts. I have mine, the same as any healthy man. What I think is important is to be clear about what they are, and what they demand. I have tried to be.
You might want to try as well. It’s not so bad, to admit that you’re no better than other men: just as irrational, just as rational. Indeed, in a sense, it’s quite liberating to admit that you’re no better than your father or your grandfather. Of course, once you admit that you _can be no better_, you are left with the duty to _try and be as good_.
_”In 1994, Palin attended the group’s annual convention,_”
Obama has been connected with Ayers much more recently than that.
Also- we havent stooped to attacking spousal associations, have we? Do you really want people to start tracking down Michelle Obama’s friends and neighbors? Im sure its fascinating reading, just not particularly relevant.
Mark, you obviously missed the part about Sarah Palin speaking at the AIP conventions.
Still don’t get it, Grim, sorry. You still brought your children and their range of experiences into this discussion and your follow-up does nothing to clarify my suspicions or questions about what this suggests about your views.
Except for the fact, that in 1994; Wally Hickel, the AIP’s candidate was the mayor. Do you really
think she want to secede from the country, no of course not. Do you think Obama, agrees with Ayers
on what he considers is the total illegitimacy of this country. Far more evidence of that, with the further contacts with Wright, Phleger, Farrakhan, et al. This explains the sympathy with Hamas, the more academic aspects of Palestinian politics, the wider community supporting the FARC,The whole matter of the witch doctor is even easier to explain; coming from a Latin culture. it’s an injunction against ill will, what is known as a ‘despojo’ heck she needs a booster shot just now from Sullivan’s bad juju; does the doc do house calls?
And Obama is a member of a political party founded by a racist, Andrew Jackson.
Vogler was dead by 1994. The AIP also held the governorship without firing a shot at Fort Wainright during this period.
(And I believe Gov. Palin’s attendance in ’94 remains disputed. She did appear before the party in ’06 when she campaigned for Governor. “Link”:http://www.akip.org/090308.html )
I’m not really interested in your suspicions, son. I don’t recall mentioning anything about ‘range of experiences,’ but I have taught my son to paddle a raft, ride a horse, read books, shoot a rifle, study hard, hike trails, play tackle football, practice jujitsu and swordsmanship, recognize poision ivy, start a fire, swim, track animals, build a camp, kill and clean small game, sharpen a knife, and show respect to his elders.
I haven’t been very good about getting him to church, I’ll be the first to admit — neither he nor I have ever been much for sermons. But I think he’s had a fair range of experiences. Indeed, I wouldn’t be shocked if at his tender age he could do a thing or two you’ve never tried.
And yet you wouldn’t trust him with Obama?
I think your posts in aggregate only serve to prove my point about the nature of your feelings about Obama, Grim.
I’m not sure what your point is, exactly, except that you think I don’t like him. I’ve said that myself, more than once. I have a reason: I don’t think he has any loyalty to the project, to _America_ as I understand it. Now, that may be “rational” or “irrational,” depending on your point of view. I don’t care enough about the distinction to argue it; the irrational part of the soul has a lot to contribute, as I see it.
So you’re basically admitting that your dislike for Obama is irrational and you’re comfortable with that.
The very fact that his life is in many ways the very essence of a core American ideal, yet you complain about his “loyalty” to a “Project America”, is the clearest example yet of that very fact.
Douglas-
bq. _But that’s exactly what Palin, and many of her supporters, are saying – that she’s better qualified to win the election than Biden because she’s representative of “real” small town America. That’s what you yourself are saying when you say_
bq. “I’ve seen both sides- and I’m not sure I wouldn’t say the Rural folks aren’t more moral, either.”
bq. Well, first, there’s a reason why I presented that sentiment as a conditionally modified opinion, and not as a fact. I’ll even go so far as to back it up to some extent by noting that people in rural areas and small towns are consistently more polite than people in and around big cities. That’s not insignificant.
bq. That said, I didn’t declare that just being from a rural location gave someone moral absolute superiority over someone from an urban area, not at all. I don’t think you can give me a quote from anyone of significance that is saying that either. I do not accept your statement as fact, so I’d be appreciative if you could back it up in some way.
No, you didn’t declare that rural people are better than urban people – you’re just broadly hinting at it, both with your suggestion that rural folks are more moral, and more recently with your observation that rural and small town people are more polite. (Not in my experience, but what the heck.)
Likewise, Palin herself mostly just hints at it, both in her convention speech, with the Harry Truman reference, and in the recent debate, with her insistence that Wasilla “reality” was what was needed to fix Wall Street and Washington.
In fact, to get the really sneering and obvious dismissals of urban people, you’ve got to go to Gulianni’s convention speech… or Glen’s endorsement of David Bernstein’s quote above:
bq. It’s not that surprising that [Obama] wouldn’t find Ayers and Wright objectionable company–in the very liberal, Hyde Park/Ivy League circles that he’s traveled in since attending Columbia, people with such views are more mainstream than, say, the average conservative evangelical Christian.
bq. Exactly – the familiar is unthreatening, and for some people, vice versa. It is possible to be wealthy, well-traveled, well-educated – and yet be a perfect provincial bigot.
Figuring out who’s being bigoted towards whom in this scenario – urban folks towards rural folks or vice versa – is left as an exercise to the reader.
What I’m saying is that I don’t care whether you think I’m rational or not. A man ought to be both, so I’m fine with being both.
As for Obama’s life being ‘the essence of a core American ideal,’ I’m glad you broght that up. It’s a subject we were talking about just above.
_This is also why generations of immigrants came to America and found that this myth was a way they could readily fit into the culture. Take a look at the filming crew behind _High Noon_, and you’ll see how instantly Europeans could grasp what was at work here, and braid themselves into it if they chose._
This is the “melting pot” ideal, which has a proud history here. Anyone — absolutely anyone — can come and be as American as anyone else. All that is asked is that they bind themselves to the ethic. And those that do, we take them as brothers.
Now, Senator Obama, he seems to have tried to “melt” into the pot in an unusual way. As someone who grew up in Indonesia, with a non-American father, he chose to melt into America as a member of those constitutionally opposed to America as it has always existed. He sought out a Communist mentor in Hawaii, sought career advice from Saul Alinsky’s movement, and then moved toward national politics through Bill Ayers.
So: he made his choice. He can own it. He had his choice as to how to join the American community, and he chose to join those opposed to it. Let him be honest about that.
Oh, by the way, since ya’ll didn’t like the suggestion that you read Louis L’amour? Try “listening to Merle Haggard.”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns9m8hi7vJ0
You know he endorsed Sen. Clinton this last time around. I might have voted for her myself.
Well, maybe you never heard of him. Maybe you should have.
Oh, and click on that link at the top of the recommended bar. It’s another version of the song _from 1968_.
That’s forty years, children.
You can hear the song today on your country music radio. Most likely you _will_ hear it if you set your dial the right way this next month.
You might want to think about that.
Hmmm… when you’ve run out of arguments and ideas, pitch symbols, Grim? That’s precisely what Palin and team are up to, and I calls ’em when I sees ’em.
I believe I previously made a comment about Grim’s confusion of political _branding_ with political _ideas_.
I was around, and listening to the radio, when “Okie From Muskogee” hit, which was 1969, (_before_ “Fightin’ Side”), so you may want to reel in that “children” and “son” business, and the condescension. (Notwithstanding the mis-labeling on the You-Tube clip, “Fightin'” was released in 1970. Check _Billboard_’s charts) I know what Haggard has said since about what he did and didn’t intend, (and have some pretty clear idea as to what he may have been smoking at the time, notwithstanding the line in “Okie”.) I’ve also heard what sounds like suspiciously anti-war stuff from his last couple of albums. Those didn’t get a hell of a lot of airplay…
Your taste for country music doesn’t make you more patriotic, Grim; that you think that it makes you look more patriotic just means you’ve bought the brand. If you were as familiar with the Armstrong Hot Fives and Hot Sevens, (or the early catalog of Atlantic Records) you might make a better pitch that you really loved this country’s culture.
and ol’ Saul Alinsky? Not a Marxist, by his own description: (from a 1972 interview)
bq I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. . . . . . . .
When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, “This is the face of a warmonger.”
bq I’ve never joined any organization — not even the ones I’ve organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what judge Learned Hand described as “that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.” If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.
…and Dan Kaufmann at #13: Park and Burpee Seed both have had arugula in their catalogs for twenty or so years now, along with fancy raddiccio; Harris and Gurnsey have more than one kind. I saw ’em there before I saw ’em in a grocery strore, and I’ve lived in Los Angeles since 1975.
“He sought out a Communist mentor in Hawaii”
As I recall this person was a friend of Obama’s American grandfather, who was himself on the far left.
The terms to which you object, Mr. Gould-Saltman, were not directed to readers in general. Rather, they were part of a discussion with one particular person, who is being received in the same spirit he offered.
_…when you’ve run out of arguments and ideas, pitch symbols, Grim?_
That said, I’ll repeat to you what I said to Vista in one respect: I am not here making political arguments. I’m not trying to convince you to vote one way or another. This isn’t being said to try and change their minds, or yours. I’m trying to help AJL (in particular) and others understand an ethic that he (in particular) says he can’t view as anything other than code.
What I’d like to convey is that — far from code, which is superficial by nature — it is indeed a deeply held sense of things. I quote Merle Haggard not to advocate a political position but to make clear that the ethic is one with lasting roots. It’s the same reason I’ve cited Louis L’amour: not for the man himself, but for those who have kept his books in print decade after decade. I’m not talking about what the man himself thinks, but about what the millions who have listened to that song over and over for decades think. That song has remained popular for so long because it resonates, and you’ll hear it today if you listen.
Of course, so has John Lennon’s “Imagine,” which advocates an entirely different perspective. Still, in a sense that puts the song in the right company: it is a piece that people still today put forward as something that speaks for how they feel. So is “Fighting Side.” It’s something that conveys a basic feeling common to a lot of people in America — ‘I don’t mind them switching sides and standing up for things they believe in; but when they’re running down our country, man…’
That’s the point here. If you want to hear it from an Obama supporter instead of from me, talk to Sen. Jim Webb. He and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, even if we break this year on which Presidential candidate is the right one.
As for ‘branding,’ I know a lot of patriots who like other kinds of music. Country music isn’t offered here as proof of anyone’s patriotism, but as a sense of what matters to people who like it. I’ll remind you of “the brand Sen. Obama bought.”:http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…”
That’s another view. I guess it’s better than viewing our feelings as ‘code,’ since it at least assumes they are sincere feelings. Mistakes, but sincere mistakes. Still, it’s a view that looks at these people as aliens.
That gives rise to problems with those voters that you wouldn’t have with Sen. Clinton as the candidate: to say nothing of Jim Webb, who’d probably be leading 75-25 at this point. Certainly I’d be behind him.
bq. Now, Senator Obama, he seems to have tried to “melt” into the pot in an unusual way. As someone who grew up in Indonesia, with a non-American father,
There’s nothing here that is unusual at all. His father left his family when he was 2, as you may or may not know, and he was raised then by his white mother and grandmother, first in Indonesia and then in Hawaii (one of the 50 states).
bq. he chose to melt into America as a member of those constitutionally opposed to America as it has always existed. He sought out a Communist mentor in Hawaii, sought career advice from Saul Alinsky’s movement, and then moved toward national politics through Bill Ayers.
Nice little fantasy you’ve constructed here, full of distortions, which does nothing more than continue to illustrate your irrational bias and dislike of the man. And in truth I don’t care about whether you do or not, nor feel it is worth anyones while to continue to be treated to further written incarnations of this.
We got your point about this a long time ago, Grim, so I’m not sure why you continue to make it. Especially since it does not bear on the point you raised that I called you on.
The issue again is why you won’t allow your children to be “alone” with him.
Now if this was simply just another “creative” way of expressing your dislike, then it should be regarded as the worthless comment it is and ignore it.
But your continual effort to debate this point using oblique arguments suggests that there’s more to it than that.
I’m not sure what part of that ‘fantasy’ you think is distorted, since you don’t say. The first claim is from Sen. Obama’s autobiography, where he refers to Frank Marshall Davis on several occasions. The second is referenced by “the Chicago Sun-Times”:http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/540781,CST-NWS-camp04.article and the third is a matter of public record. Obama put himself forward for national office based on “the chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I Ayers got him, and kicked off his campaign at the guy’s house.
You and I are here for different reasons, and it may simply be best to accept that. You’re here to push the pro-Obama perspective. As I said in the post above, my point of view is not wholly incompatible with the pro-Obama perspective: Sen. Webb is pro-Obama, and he and I are much alike.
What I would like you to do is try to understand the point of view he and I share. I don’t care where it leads you politically: I’ve been transparent about both my own sense and the fact that people I respect may feel otherwise. What I’d like to direct the reader’s eye toward is the underlying ethic, which Sen. Webb wrote about in _Born Fighting_ and I’ve written about here and elsewhere.
bq. ‘m not sure what part of that ‘fantasy’ you think is distorted, since you don’t say. The first claim is from Sen. Obama’s autobiography, where he refers to Frank Marshall Davis on several occasions. The second is referenced by the Chicago Sun-Times and the third is a matter of public record. Obama put himself forward for national office based on the chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge Ayers got him, and kicked off his campaign at the guy’s house.
It’s interesting that Grim’s hitting on this stuff right as the McCain campaign announces guilt-by-association will be a cornerstone of the last month of campaigning. But rather than directly rebut the scare tactic YouTube video Grim links to, I think it’s best just to point out that two can play the association game, and that it’s best to judge political actors based on their _actions_, more than anything else.
bq. You and I are here for different reasons, and it may simply be best to accept that. You’re here to push the pro-Obama perspective.
I don’t think Vista’s countering of anti-Obama smears really counts as “pushing the pro-Obama perspective”. But anyone who’d say:
bq. Now, Senator Obama, he seems to have tried to “melt” into the pot in an unusual way. As someone who grew up in Indonesia, with a non-American father, he chose to melt into America as a member of those constitutionally opposed to America as it has always existed.
…clearly is coming to the party with a pretty slanted perspective of their own. Obama “grew up” in the US – he’s a native born citizen who was raised for the solid majority of his childhood in Hawaii. Trying to claim that living abroad for four years – from 6 to 10, hardly the time most people latch on to political ideology – and having a non-American father somehow makes you an outsider who _has_ to “melt” into the US in the first place is complete BS, and it should only take a small amount of reflection to see who’s really pushing perspectives here.
I’ll chime in to note that it is a “fantasy” to think that the fleeting associations that Obama has had with Ayers, no different than many that both McCain or Palin or any public person has had over the years, is some kind of indication of his support for domestic terrorism….
…when McCain has gone on record, in the Senate, of doing so.
“Link.”:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DA1439F934A25752C1A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Senate Passes Abortion-Clinic Crime Bill
By ADAM CLYMER,
Published: November 17, 1993
The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a Federal law to prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions..
The vote was 69 to 30. Twenty-eight senators who voted against Federal financing of abortions six weeks ago supported the measure, seeing it as a law-and-order matter rather than as an abortion issue. Senator David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, called the bill an effort to restore “civility in our national debates.”
“More:”:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/6/9421/78794/990/621432
bq. McCain was one of a distinct minority of radical “pro-life” senators. A number of senators who opposed abortion nonetheless voted for the legislation because they thought it would protect women and their doctors. It was only the extremists who opposed the bill — and McCain was one of them.
bq. One important detail about this legislation is that it was a standalone bill. In other words, McCain was opposed to this particular policy; he can’t say that he opposed the bill for some unrelated reason.
If anything, Obama’s associations with Ayers has been long, sustained, if not constant. The more information that comes out the more times Obama is proven to have spent time with the man, in direct contradiction to everything Obama has claimed about their relationship. And its not a proximity argument, these men worked together, extensively. How much ideology do they share? That is the relevant question.
#82:
_…somehow makes you an outsider who has to “melt” into the US…_
The central text for this claim is the Senator’s own autobiography. Sen. Obama has been fairly clear that he came to the United States as an outsider, who was looking for how he might fit in. This is his claim, and indeed the central claim of his book.
When someone describes their whole life in these terms, we might reasonably say that he was an outsider who was trying to figure out how he fit — that is, how to ‘melt.’
_It’s interesting that Grim’s hitting on this stuff right as the McCain campaign…_
For better or worse, I’ve been hitting this stuff since well before the McCain campaign got to it. I turned against Sen. Obama when he turned on his preacher, once it became clear he’d violate a trust and friendship as profound as they shared. I’ve expressed my respect for the Rev. Wright several times in this thread alone, and elsewhere as well. Whether you agree with him or not, you know where he stands, and you can expect him to defend that place.
_I think it’s best just to point out that two can play the association game…_
OK, well, I followed that link, and it seems to suggest that G. Gordon Liddy is the equivalent of Ayers. I thought Liddy was infamous for Watergate, but this claim is based on a remark he made on his radio show during the Clinton administration: to whit, that if the ATF should kick in your door at night, you should shoot them in the head because they’d be wearing body armor.
Now, I wouldn’t defend the remark. I realize incitement is taken seriously by the law. Nevertheless, it isn’t the same as actually setting bombs.
Furthermore, I don’t see how suggesting that someone should fire on someone inside their own home (in order to discourage the ATF from doing their job via SWAT style raids) is quite the same as saying that we should set bombs in public places (in order to overthrow the government of the United States).
That seems like a difference even if you were just _saying_ that people should set bombs. Ayers and his folk used actual bombs.
#83:
Mr. Tarhune:
This wasn’t exactly a vote to legalize bombing clinics. One might oppose making a Federal crime out of something that is already a state crime for reasons unrelated to supporting murder. Some people do have Federalist principles, and believe that the states and the Federal government are meant to serve two separate purposes. Murder is normally a state-level offense, illegal in every one of the fifty states, and one punishable by death in many of them; by life without parole in others; and even an attempted murder, by twenty years in prison. That’s more or less the maximum penalty the law permits.
Laws of this type seek to make Federal crimes out of certain forms of murder as a statement that ‘this kind of murder is _especially_ bad.’ They don’t really increase the penalties at work, though, since the penalties are already maximized; but they do require an extra trial, and increase the workload on both Federal police and the Federal courts.
I think one could oppose this law on those grounds, without being in any way blameworthy for doing so.
I’m glad to learn more about the associations that McCain has had with people his critics disdain. I wouldn’t expect that his campaign would highlight them.
Without knowing more, I won’t take Kos’ word on why McCain voted as he did in 1993 (already, a segue from who-he-associates-with, but certainly votes are a legitimate window into a politician’s soul). But good on them and you for bringing this up.
Same standard for Obama. It’s curious to paint Grim’s descriptions of Obama’s associations as “fantasy,” because Obama himself doesn’t describe them that way. He and his associates are singularly unhelpful to people like Stanley Kurtz, and de-emphasize Obama’s record of connections with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, but the don’t deny them. As one would deny a fantasy.
Fortunately or not, Ayers has proudly left a long paper trail as to what he believes, and why. Here’s a 2006 interview of Ayers by Reggie Dylan, in “Revolution,”:http://rwor.org/a/063/ayers-en.html the house organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.
bq. Reggie Dylan: …Ward Churchill has become a concentration point of [the notion that right-wing-miseducated kids come to university and get challenged with ideas they’ve never heard before].
bq. Bill Ayers: Well, Ward Churchill is a great example because what I think people, leftists are continually doing with the Ward Churchill case is missing this larger context you and I are talking about and instead kind of parsing, “Well, what did he say and do I agree with it.†What the hell do I care? First of all, there was a thorough study done by a university committee that never should have been set up, and they found a few, a tiny, a handful of instances where he might have borrowed a phrase, but nothing like Doris Kearns-Goodwin did, nothing like, you know, the big academics at Harvard have done, like Dershowitz. And yet somehow he’s held to the standard. And then people on the left again feel like they have to say, well this is part of what Ward says I don’t agree with. What has that got to do with it? He’s being pilloried for his politics, for being a leftist, for being a critic of U.S. imperialism as it relates to Native Americans. How can we as socialists or as communists or as leftists, how can we leave him in the cold and say, well I’m a good leftist because I don’t talk the way Ward talks. I find that appalling. And I would hope that when they come to get Ward, we all link arms and don’t allow it.
Obama and McCain have the right to associate with whomever they wish. Obama seems virtually alone in achieving a Holy Grail of electoral politics: having examinations of his close associations declared out-of-bounds.
G_Tarhune –
So that means John McCain supports domestic terrorism?
As the guy in Ghostbusters said, are there any other paintings in the museum with bad spirits in them?
Moment of clarity- the stock market appears to be crashing at the moment. See you all on the other side.
bq. Laws of this type seek to make Federal crimes out of certain forms of murder as a statement that ‘this kind of murder is especially bad.’ They don’t really increase the penalties at work, though, since the penalties are already maximized; but they do require an extra trial, and increase the workload on both Federal police and the Federal courts.
Interesting take. My understanding is that Federal laws are imposed to uphold constitutional principles and rights governing all citizens across state boundaries.
Interesting that you bring this up, though. Palin said in the infamous Couric interview that she believes the constitution supports a right of privacy, seemingly unaware that this principle underlies Roe v. Wade, the only Supreme Court decision she could recall opposing. Clash of the Principles!
Terrorism is already a Federal crime. The bill was, in essence, intended to clarify the issue of whether bombing of abortion clinics or murder of abortion doctors fell under that umbrella, which would allow federal investigative resources to be brought to bear in combating these acts, which often transcend state boundaries. In voting no, McCain is saying, in effect, that he doesn’t think it is terrorism. Since it clearly is, his vote indicates support for this act, making the statement more than valid.
The “Federalist” argument is hooey, in other words.
bq. The central text for this claim is the Senator’s own autobiography. Sen. Obama has been fairly clear that he came to the United States as an outsider, who was looking for how he might fit in. This is his claim, and indeed the central claim of his book.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie. Dreams from My Father is a considerably more subtle book than that – while Obama certainly discusses his struggle to integrate various aspects of his culture and heritage, he at no point that I remember claims to have “come to the United States as an outsider” – because, of course, he was merely _returning_ to the US, not arriving for the first time. In fact, as I read it, his primary thesis was that the racism he encountered in a US high school was the first time he became aware that he _wasn’t_ all-American.
bq. For better or worse, I’ve been hitting this stuff since well before the McCain campaign got to it.
Awesome – so you’ve been playing in the mud well before the McCain campaign got there. Of course, they can, at least in part, excuse their actions out of desperation during an increasingly bad electoral season. You’ve apparently latched on to the idea that you can write off a man’s entire character based on scratchy You Tube videos.
bq. OK, well, I followed that link, and it seems to suggest that G. Gordon Liddy is the equivalent of Ayers. I thought Liddy was infamous for Watergate, but this claim is based on a remark he made on his radio show during the Clinton administration: to whit, that if the ATF should kick in your door at night, you should shoot them in the head because they’d be wearing body armor.
bq. Now, I wouldn’t defend the remark. I realize incitement is taken seriously by the law. Nevertheless, it isn’t the same as actually setting bombs.
bq. Furthermore, I don’t see how suggesting that someone should fire on someone inside their own home (in order to discourage the ATF from doing their job via SWAT style raids) is quite the same as saying that we should set bombs in public places (in order to overthrow the government of the United States).
bq. That seems like a difference even if you were just saying that people should set bombs. Ayers and his folk used actual bombs.
So… you say you won’t defend that remark, and then spend three paragraphs defending it. Nice.
That said, McCain was – and is – Liddy’s pal while Liddy was saying this exact stuff. Obama was 8 years old while Ayers was doing his Weatherman stuff, and has done absolutely nothing, to my knowledge, that indicates he’s at all supportive or interested in Ayers’ former goals or methods, which, to my mind, is the real question we should be asking of both politicians. And I think it’s clear that Liddy, Keating, Hagee, etc. have had far more actual influence on McCain’s actual ideas and actions in this campaign than Ayers, Wright, and Rezko have had on Obama’s.
_Palin said in the infamous Couric interview that she believes the constitution supports a right of privacy, seemingly unaware that this principle underlies Roe v. Wade, the only Supreme Court decision she could recall opposing. Clash of the Principles!_
Clarence Thomas believes there is a right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And as to the abortion-clinic stuff, I worked for an anti-death penalty organization in 1993, which was quite Left-wing, and they opposed the federalization of criminal law for reasons similar to Grim’s.
_This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie._
That isn’t a very fine point at all.
The “book”:http://obamalover.googlepages.com/DreamsFromMyFather.pdf starts with a Biblical quotation: “For we are strangers before them, and sojourners, as were all our fathers.” (1 Chronicles 29:15).
That’s the theme of the book. I mean, it’s OK if you read it and got something else out of it, I don’t mind. But it’s hardly false to say that his major theme was searching for a way to meld into the America he found.
It’s also worth pointing out that the “racism” he describes is both black and white: his point is that he isn’t at home in either world.
“The constant, crippling fear that I didn’t belong somehow, that unless I dodged and hid and pretended to be something I wasn’t I would forever remain an outsider, with the rest of the world, black and white, always standing in judgment.”
Now, you can have tremendous sympathy for his predicament there, and cheer when he finally finds acceptance and a home in Chicago. Back when it looked like that was the truth, I had tremendous sympathy myself. When he said that he wouldn’t — couldn’t! — turn his back on Rev. Wright, I admired that act of courage. It was a loyalty that struck me as deserved, because this was the man who’d helped him find the home he’d wanted so long.
It was when he broke that promise that I changed my mind. Indeed, being familiar with the story heightened my sense that this man had betrayed a great trust and broken a great gift.
Others may have gotten something else out of the story, and again, that’s fine. I don’t think my reading is implausible.
#91, are you trying to say that there may be valid reasons for opposing the bill other than supporting terrorism, and that this is an ungenerous interpretation of McCain’s position, even as it is concordant with the current standards for political claims in the current atmosphere?
So it’s all just a matter of perspective (bias) and interpretation I guess.
Thanks…that’s precisely the reason why I raised this issue.
#92 from Grim at 5:07 pm on Oct 06, 2008
For what it is worth, Grim, it is a father who speaks those words, King David. The chapter is about the building of the temple Chapter begins with his speaking of his son
1 Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the LORD God.
Later,
1 Chronicles 29:13 to 15
13 Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.
14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.
*15 For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers:* our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.
I would seem to me that quoting this passage has a much broader and profound meaning than you give to it.
I calls to mind on one level the Irish proverb that says something like “Anything worth doing takes more than a life time”. And that Obama, like David has accepoted that all fathers ar equal before God. something that all of us that have been both sons and fathers, hopefully come to realize on a very profound level.
It is quite a moving passage.
Thank you for that, TOC. I haven’t read that passage in a while.
I don’t mean to undercut the significance of the passage, or even the autobiography. It was a moving autobiography (the moreso to have been written by one so young), and the story is one of building something, an identity, a home, of finding a place in an America he didn’t know how to join.
As recently as March, I still was still highly sympathetic to the Senator. I was never a political supporter, but “I thought he spoke well”:http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2008/03/obamas_subtle_r.html of race, though I believed the Wright business would cost him the Democratic primary:
bq. He has spoken better than many, calling the Left to remember the best principles of our nation. Let us treat him honorably, and even generously, and take special pains to be fair.
I’m one of the few people (I gather) who can remember much about his speech on race without looking it up. He used the Preamble to the Constitution’s “more perfect union” as his metaphor, and it was a beautiful speech. I admired that he stood by his old friend, in spite of the political cost. (Who knew that neither Clinton nor McCain would really hammer him with Wright’s comments?) Furthermore, I enjoyed Wright’s appearance “at the National Press Club.”:http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/transcript-rev-wright-at-the-national-press-club/ I thought it revealed him as a man who — however much we might disagree — was thoughtful, educated, and someone worth listening to as a critic.
Sen. Obama turned on him right after that appearance, and there was no need for it at all.
If he’d stood up for him then, like he had just before, I think that while I’d still oppose him on policy grounds, I’d respect and like him.
But then, if he was the kind of man who would do that, he would be a different man than he is. Instead, he turned on a man who helped him find and build that home. It was the first of many betrayals — Samantha Powers sticks in the mind — but it was particularly shocking. A man who would do that, I wonder what he’s loyal to at all.
Again, though, I realize other people feel otherwise. I’ve tried to explain my own thinking and feelings on the subject, but also to recognize that others — even people I respect, like Sen. Webb — don’t agree. That’s fine, but their disagreement doesn’t change my own sense.
[Busted URL format, fixed. –NM]
I’m looking at the latest Newsweek and I see this ‘headline’:
She’s One of the Folks
(and that’s the problem)
and there is the Democrat’s problem (to the extent they have one this election cycle). But if they internalize this year’s electoral success to mean the common touch is irrelevant, I believe the wilderness awaits. (The Republican problem appears to be a belief that losing is the path to winning, something they ascribe to national politics and the financial markets)
“…a belief that losing is the path to winning…”
Thomas P. Barnett says that the Army can’t learn until it fails. There’s a certain truth to that — elements of the Army (and Marines) were doing the right things in Iraq almost from the beginning, but it took a crisis point to force the whole shebang to grind itself into gear. (Part of that is doubtless because we have politicians at the top of the chain.)
Could be that holds true for political parties as well; and maybe for complex financial systems.
bq. Could be that holds true for political parties as well; and maybe for complex financial systems.
Newsflash: the America public is tired of being part of the Great Republican Experiment in Recklessness and Failure. Dontcha think?
I’m with G_T; McCain’s vote can be taken as support for terrorism
Now, Palin, there’s another story:
A Pastor who preached in her church organized and perpetrated an act of domestic terrorism on a resident of a town, a woman, that he accused of being “a witch”.
“This has to be read in full to appreciate it in full.”:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1057181/Palin-African-pastor-friend-waged-witch-hunt-woman-believed-caused-car-crashes.html
bq. Her alleged involvement in fortune-telling and the fact that she lived near the site of a number of fatal car accidents led Pastor Muthee to publicly brand her a witch.
bq. He ordered her to offer her up her soul for salvation or leave Kiambu.
bq. “Muthee held a crusade that ‘brought about 200 people to Christ’â€, the Monitor said.
bq. They set up round-the-clock prayer intercession and eventually, says the pastor “the demonic influence was brokenâ€, and Mama Jane fled the town.
bq. According to accounts of the witch-hunt circulated on evangelical websites, after Mutheee spoke out against Mama Jane many villagers demanded she be
stoned.
bq. Police raided her home and shot a pet python which was believed to be a demon.
bq. Muthee,who said he became a pastor after “God spoke” to him in 1989, has frequently referred to this witch-hunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfareâ€.
Here’s Palin giving him credit for helping her political career:
bq. In June, Palin told how a visiting pastor from Kenya had foretold she was destined for greater things.
bq. She told other members of the Assembly of God church in her home town of Wasilla, Alaska, that Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her head and prayed over her when they met in 2005.
bq. After what the 44-year-old described as his “awesome” prayer she went on to become Alaska’s first governor.
bq. Recalling the event, Palin said “As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold.
bq. “And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.
bq. “And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are.
Nice tu quoque, Vista. But let’s make it into a real discussion. If your claim is that none of this matters – so we shouldn’t judge Obama by Wright or Ayers – it’s kind of a lame argument.
But if the argument is that this election is about Two Americas – one represented by Wright and one by Muthee, it could be a very interesting discussion.
A.L.
So, the new Talking Points are in, and it’s going to be all Ayers, all the time.
Obligatory Disclaimer: I’m sorry Ayers didn’t serve time. Many of his comrades, the ones that didn’t score an own goal, seem to have come to new wisdom. Not he, and not his wife. I will, moreover, concede that many of the educational innovations he (and Obama) championed were not effective. It would be an interesting experiment to ask Obama what, if anything, he learned from failed initiatives. That doesn’t seem to be important to the Republicans right now, since it doesn’t have enough Hail Mary magic bullet potential.
Obligatory tu quoque: Gordon Liddy?! He actually did serve time, didn’t he? And he isn’t sorry, either. And while we’re there, has Michele Obama ever joined the Illinois Independence Party? (Although, to be honest, the AIP looks to me like a subtle joke.)
That’s the end of the concessions. For the rest, we’re being treated to a highly distorted version of Obama’s life as massaged by 9/11 nut Jerome Corsi, and others. Now, maybe it’s true that the NY Times article that concluded Ayers and Obama were “not that close” is, as right-winger Kurtz calls it, a “whitewash”, but what’s the positive evidence? The fact Ayers and Obama served on the same board isn’t evidence; there’s a Republican McCain supporter on the same board. I’m not aware of any evidence that Obama had a role in picking the Ayers living room for a Hyde Park meet-and-greet, and the idea that Ayers was launching Obama is ludicrous. He didn’t even arrange the party; he just offered the space. Ayers contributed something like $200 to Obama’s campaign. The claim that Ayers “picked” Obama for the CAC position flies in the teeth of the fact someone else (Deborah Leff), who already knew him, says she picked him.
The NYT writer wasn’t shy about defending himself.
Now, the conservatives (or rather, the right-radicals) certainly do have a reason to think they’re lying: the witnesses support Obama, and the right-radicals would gladly lie in the same situation, mutatis mutandis. Today McCain is even stepping away from his decades-long apology for his carrying water for (convicted criminal) Charles Keating.
It’s similar with Frank Davis. The description of this elderly communist as Obama’s “mentor” appears to be a creation of the right. Can someone supply the passage in Obama’s own work where he mentions having absorbed any sort of political consciousness from his grandfather’s friend Frank?
Oooh. Look. Scary Communist Muslim Black Man.
We’ll see in a week if this line of attack will do anything to stop McCain’s poll numbers from following his honor to the bottom. I doubt it. His campaign is now in the death spiral.
Oh, hell, can someone close the bold tag after ‘tu quoque:’ above?
Vista #99 —
From the article you cite:
bq. But it has now emerged that [Muthee] was once involved in driving out a woman from her home who local villagers [in Kiambu, Kenya] believed was a witch.
Can you provide more detail to how this story pertains to Palin? Is there evidence about how close and long-lasting her relationship with Muthee was or is? Did she know about the witchcraft incident? Are there reasons to assert that she should she have known?
This story might provide uncanny parallels to Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, and others. Or it might not. In my opinion, the article doesn’t provide enough information to tell.
Per A.L.’s point in #100, if the stories are essentially identical in import, should we condemn or excuse both Palin and Obama? Or should the order of the day be that supporters of X seek post-hoc rationalizations for criticizing only Y?
Chris:
“you’re just broadly hinting at it, both with your suggestion that rural folks are more moral, and more recently with your observation that rural and small town people are more polite. (Not in my experience, but what the heck.)”
Ever consider that fact is more about you than them? Just a thought. Keep in mind that I am myself an urbanite. I’m not judging from their side, I’m judging from mine.
“I think it’s best just to point out that two can play the association game,”
Did you actually read the links and the source links there? If you did, and you tried to look at the facts objectively, instead of as possible political talking points, you’d notice that there are some big differences in the sorts of ‘relationships’ being compared. But I guess you see what you want, and I see what I want, right?
“Trying to claim that living abroad for four years – from 6 to 10, hardly the time most people latch on to political ideology – and having a non-American father somehow makes you an outsider who has to “melt” into the US in the first place is complete BS”
Tell it to my wife who emigrated here at 11 years old, and had to work hard to fit in. If you don’t even understand this…
GTarhune:
“The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a Federal law to prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions..”
Perhaps it was the bit in there about “blockades”. Can you imagine a law making blockading, oh, say military recruiters offices a federal crime? What would the reaction be? And aren’t there already laws against bombing, and physical violence against people? I think so. Sounds like a stupid law to me, and it’s got nothing to do with abortion.
You know, if you ask me, the fact that Obama wants to block so much of his personal background from public scrutiny says an awful lot about him. Why did they try to block access to the Annenberg files? If there was nothing but professional and limited contact with Ayers, why bother? Why can we know nothing of his experiences at Occidental and Harvard, except the few facts he’s allowed us?
“Interesting that you bring this up, though. Palin said in the infamous Couric interview that she believes the constitution supports a right of privacy, seemingly unaware that this principle underlies Roe v. Wade, the only Supreme Court decision she could recall opposing. Clash of the Principles!”
Some of us actually believe that the right to privacy is limited, and doesn’t include getting an abortion- but I guess you’re the final authority on principles. C’est la vie.
“Interesting take. My understanding is that Federal laws are imposed to uphold constitutional principles and rights governing all citizens across state boundaries.”
Unless those actions the bill was referring to were part of an interstate conspiracy, your logic wouldn’t apply. If they were part of an interstate conspiracy, there’s already law to cover that.
“…argument is hooey, in other words.”
“So it’s all just a matter of perspective (bias) and interpretation I guess.”
No, it’s that criminal law, with few exceptions is left to the states, and the Constitution only gives the federal government jurisdiction over criminal activity in a very few specific cases. Unless you meant that comment about reading the Constitution.
Chris:
“So… you say you won’t defend that remark, and then spend three paragraphs defending it. Nice.”
Uh, no he made a distinction demonstrating why the supposed equivalence you made was not accurate. Nuance, I guess.
“Obama was 8 years old while Ayers was doing his Weatherman stuff, and has done absolutely nothing, to my knowledge, that indicates he’s at all supportive or interested in Ayers’ former goals or methods, which, to my mind, is the real question we should be asking of both politicians.”
Ayers may have done the Weatherman stuff when Obama was a child, but he’s unrepentant about it now. Said so in 2001. When Obama was doing the Annenberg thing, he worked with Ayers to feed money to Ayers organization and to leftist ‘educational’ organizations instead of funding things that might have actually helped kids learn. Just look at the results, or lack of. Ayers never changed his goals, and likely not his methods either-NYT 9-11-01:“”I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” When asked in that same interview if he would set more bombs today, his response was, “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”. By the way, the Ayers quote in #86 was from 2006, not 1968.
I wasn’t even going to comment on vista, but this was too good:
“I’m with G_T; McCain’s vote can be taken as support for terrorism”
Too bad GTarhune has since backed off that one. See comment #93.
AJL
“It would be an interesting experiment to ask Obama what, if anything, he learned from failed initiatives. That doesn’t seem to be important to the Republicans right now, since it doesn’t have enough Hail Mary magic bullet potential.”
Isn’t that supposed to be the role of the press?
“Now, maybe it’s true that the NY Times article that concluded Ayers and Obama were “not that close” is, as right-winger Kurtz calls it, a “whitewash”, but what’s the positive evidence?”
It’s not just the six documented board meetings at Annenberg, and the meet & greet, it’s also Woods fund, Rashid Khalidi, Ayers and Obama worked out the bylaws for the Annenberg Board, how many meetings does that take? I just did simple bylaws for a small organization I’m on the board of, and it’s complicated, and we had a template. If there’s really no connection there, why not come clean and open the books and let reporters talk to people? It’s stuff like this, in Obama’s own words, that fits right in with the crowd we’re accusing him of falling in with:
From an essay published in 1988 entitled “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,”-
The debate as to how black and other dispossessed people can forward their lot in America is not new. From W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, this internal debate has raged between integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy, between sit-down strikes and board-room negotiations. The lines between these strategies have never been simply drawn, and the most successful black leadership has recognized the need to bridge these seemingly divergent approaches.
Bridge between integration and (black) nationalism? Accommodation and militancy? Rather Ayers-esque, isn’t it?
Just to top it off, here’s a lefty wary of the Ayers/Khalidi connection to Obama, so you don’t have to take my ‘right wing’ view as gospel.
Grim, they’d have to be interested in understanding your argument for it to have any effect. This is why I generally stick to debating factually based issues- it’s a better determinant of veracity to other readers, I think. It’s parallel to what I said about traveling- it doesn’t guarantee that you come away with any meaningful understanding of the culture you just encountered- especially if you think you really understand it from that brief encounter.
Oh man, I just saw this video clip of Anderson Coopers show on CNN about Obama-Ayers. Some of you commenters may not like it much, because it pretty much blows your defense of Obama from the Ayers issue out of the water. If CNN is getting into it now, look out Obama campaign.
Can someone explain to me how the Obama – Ayers connection is going to win John McCain this election? Or how is it going to keep the Democrats from holding 57 to 58 seats in the Senate.
The McCain people have demonstrated an uncanny ability to run a losing campaign. It will be remembered for Paris Hilton and David Letterman. And I thought the Dukakis people were inept!!
_”Can someone explain to me how the Obama – Ayers connection is going to win John McCain this election?”_
Its not. It cant. And if it could have, McCain should have done it weeks ago. Now he just looks desperate.
McCains best chance was to run against Washington, but he can’t bring himself to. Obama has spent less time in Washington, he will win pretty much by default.
“Can someone explain to me how the Obama – Ayers connection is going to win John McCain this election?”
Ayers and Obama spent $160 million on a failed attempt to improve education in Chicago. Do we really want Obama anywhere near your tax dollars.
“Can someone explain to me how the Obama – Ayers connection is going to win John McCain this election?”
One recipient of the $160 million mispent by Ayers and Obama was ACORN. Obama was the legal counsel for ACORN and trained them to be activists. ACORN activists intimidated banks into giving sub-prime loans.
PS: Left off the punchline:
“Can someone explain to me how the Obama – Ayers connection is going to win John McCain this election?”
One recipient of the $160 million mispent by Ayers and Obama was ACORN. Obama was the legal counsel for ACORN and trained them to be activists. ACORN activists intimidated banks into giving sub-prime loans.
Do you want Obama trained ACORN activists as part of your government.
McCain won’t throw that punch, because most of Congress was wrapped up in ACORN and McCain has shown he isnt going to throw his buddies (either side of the aisle) under the bus. He’ll stick to ‘Wallstreet greed’ which is an empty theme. Wallstreet is supposed to be greedy, its their job. Washington, on the other hand, is a different story. McCain does have a huge opening with all the ties between Congress and this scandal, but he wont take advantage of it. So he will lose this election, probably badly.
#110 from davod at 4:14 pm on Oct 07, 2008
All this is well and good, but it doesn’t answer my question. How does it help him win the election? It doesn’t and will most probably hurt his chances even more.
His campaign team are a gaggle of fools. It is the worst run campaign that I can remember and I thought that would be impossible for me to say since, as an adult I saw both the McGovern and Dukakis campaign.
I hope the Republican Party comes out of its state of denial after the drubbing they will take this election. As far as I can tell, 58 Dems and 2 independents is about a 90% Filibuster busting super majority. Dumb campaign, dumb campaign staff.
Do you actually believe that they can turn this electorate on an Ayers/Acorn chestnut they have dug up? Don’t hold your breath.
#97 from Grim at 11:49 pm on Oct 06, 2008
“…a belief that losing is the path to winning…”
Thomas P. Barnett says that the Army can’t learn until it fails. There’s a certain truth to that — elements of the Army (and Marines) were doing the right things in Iraq almost from the beginning, but it took a crisis point to force the whole shebang to grind itself into gear. (Part of that is doubtless because we have politicians at the top of the chain.)
Could be that holds true for political parties as well; and maybe for complex financial systems.
I have been ranting on the site for months that the Republican party needs time in the Wilderness. I am what is called a PaleoCon and loathe the fact that the party has been shorn of any intellectual supports and is bereft of a coherent philosophy. I think the culprits have been the NeoCons, who, to my way of thinking are about as anti American values as any political cult that has every appeared on the American political stage. And Rovianism, which is a political philosophy which has led us in 8 short years to the absolute disaster in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately, I find my ideas to be proven out on a daily basis.
I am extremely angry at these two cancers have crept into the party and I hope, during our time in the wilderness, that both will be excised from the Republican body politic.
On the brighter side, and what I wanted to say about your comment, is I have helped a lot of entrepreneurial young people along the way and one of my commandments to them is to avoid going into business with someone who hasn’t failed at least once.
There is nothing like the sting of failure to spur success.
TOC:
Maybe so, but it seems to me that the campaigns themselves are less and less relevant to the course of the debate.
The age of the Roves and Carvilles may be over; the tone is set much more by the internet, and it’s less about Smith Vs. Jones than it is about the Blogs Vs. the MSM.
Douglas-
PROTIP: try breaking these up into separate posts.
bq. _”you’re just broadly hinting at it, both with your suggestion that rural folks are more moral, and more recently with your observation that rural and small town people are more polite. (Not in my experience, but what the heck.)”_
bq. Ever consider that fact is more about you than them? Just a thought. Keep in mind that I am myself an urbanite. I’m not judging from their side, I’m judging from mine.
So… you’re admitting that you _are_ consistently hinting that rural folks are better than urban folks? To a point where I can’t even have my own opinions on the matter, but have to second-guess myself?
bq. Did you actually read the links and the source links there? If you did, and you tried to look at the facts objectively, instead of as possible political talking points, you’d notice that there are some big differences in the sorts of ‘relationships’ being compared. But I guess you see what you want, and I see what I want, right?
I did read the links and source links there, Douglas, and I repeat that there’s more to condemn on McCain’s side than on Obama’s side, completely outside of talking points. See AJL’s post #101, among others.
bq. _”Trying to claim that living abroad for four years – from 6 to 10, hardly the time most people latch on to political ideology – and having a non-American father somehow makes you an outsider who has to “melt” into the US in the first place is complete BS”_
bq. Tell it to my wife who emigrated here at 11 years old, and had to work hard to fit in. If you don’t even understand this…
Ok, I’ll try saying this one more time: there’s a difference between _emigrating_ somewhere at 11, not _ever having been there before_, not having known the language (I’m assuming) or being familiar with the culture, which is your wife’s experience (I know it was my wife’s experience when she moved here from Italy at 14)… and Obama’s experience, which is _returning_ to the country he spent his first 6 years in, already knowing the language, the place he was moving back to, having some ideas of what the culture was like, etc.
So yeah, I actually have a pretty good idea of what the immigrant experience looks like, and why Obama’s experience does not fit that label.
bq. _”So… you say you won’t defend that remark, and then spend three paragraphs defending it. Nice.”_
bq. Uh, no he made a distinction demonstrating why the supposed equivalence you made was not accurate. Nuance, I guess.
Douglas, Grim spent 3 paragraphs downplaying the import of Libby saying why it’s OK to shoot federal agent in the head. That’s a defense of those remarks.
bq. _”Obama was 8 years old while Ayers was doing his Weatherman stuff, and has done absolutely nothing, to my knowledge, that indicates he’s at all supportive or interested in Ayers’ former goals or methods, which, to my mind, is the real question we should be asking of both politicians.”_
bq. Ayers may have done the Weatherman stuff when Obama was a child, but he’s unrepentant about it now. Said so in 2001. When Obama was doing the Annenberg thing, he worked with Ayers to feed money to Ayers organization and to leftist ‘educational’ organizations instead of funding things that might have actually helped kids learn. Just look at the results, or lack of. Ayers never changed his goals, and likely not his methods either-NYT 9-11-01:””I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” When asked in that same interview if he would set more bombs today, his response was, “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”. By the way, the Ayers quote in #86 was from 2006, not 1968.
Ok, you’ve done a fine job of painting Ayers as a scummy terrorist, past and present – no argument there. That still doesn’t offer any kind of proof that Obama even remotely shares those beliefs, other than an overstatement of how Obama and Ayers actually interacted, debunked rather well by AJL in #101.
So… what’s that again about merely trying to score political talking points?
Douglas, one more thing:
bq. Grim, they’d have to be interested in understanding your argument for it to have any effect. This is why I generally stick to debating factually based issues- it’s a better determinant of veracity to other readers, I think.
There’s a world of difference between what you’re saying there, and what you’re saying here, from earlier in the same post:
bq. It’s not just the six documented board meetings at Annenberg, and the meet & greet, it’s also Woods fund, Rashid Khalidi, Ayers and Obama worked out the bylaws for the Annenberg Board, how many meetings does that take? I just did simple bylaws for a small organization I’m on the board of, and it’s complicated, and we had a template. If there’s really no connection there, why not come clean and open the books and let reporters talk to people?
See, Douglas, if you’re actually interested in “debating factually based issues”, that generally precludes you saying – without any actual proof, just your own personal gut feeling – that there _must_ be more connections between Ayers and Obama beyond what’s documented, and suggesting that Obama must be guilty of something because he’s not “coming clean”. That’s not “debating factually based issues”, Douglas, that’s pure innuendo.
Understand what the high ground actually entails before you lay claim to it.
Grim-
bq. The book starts with a Biblical quotation: “For we are strangers before them, and sojourners, as were all our fathers.” (1 Chronicles 29:15).
TOC, in #94, did a pretty good job of getting at the larger context of this quote.
bq. That’s the theme of the book. I mean, it’s OK if you read it and got something else out of it, I don’t mind. But it’s hardly false to say that his major theme was searching for a way to meld into the America he found.
It’s my recollection that the racism he encountered really kicked into gear in high school – years after he got back from Indonesia. In other words, it wasn’t his having been abroad that set him apart, but his actual identity, as someone with both white and black ancestors. His foreign travels had nothing to do with it, which is the claim you were making earlier.
bq. It’s also worth pointing out that the “racism” he describes is both black and white: his point is that he isn’t at home in either world.
Sure. But not because he’d spent time abroad.
#114 from Glen Wishard at 6:11 pm on Oct 07, 2008
*The age of the Roves and Carvilles may be over;*
I cannot tell you how happy it made me feel to have you say that. We Republicans have a lot of work ahead of us, that starts with self examination and admitting mistakes. I hope the smug, gloating and vapid Rovian attitude is gone for good. And, we will never ever again see a vice presidential candidate like Palin put forth for political gain ever again.
We have put ourselves in a position to where we are not only not taken seriously, but, worse, we don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Let’s see what the spadework that is necessary comes up with in the next 2 to 4 years. We can’t possibly win without a coherent and cogent philosophy, Contract with America style.
_Sure. But not because he’d spent time abroad._
I think the time abroad was important to the story. Indeed, to me it seems more important than his parentage. If he’d grown up in Chicago or Kansas, for example, this question of trying to fit in wouldn’t have been something he’d struggled with — he would have been put by his society into a place, either black or white, and by the time he was old enough to think about it he’d have long ago accepted the identity.
He might still have questioned its context and justice — Ralph Ellison’s _Invisible Man_, for example, is an outstanding work on the subject of what it means to be black in America, from the perspective of someone who always was. It’s not at all the same book as Barack Obama’s, and I think the thing that lays at the root of the difference is that Obama entered the story as a pure outsider, with the special detachment that comes from that. He is wondering about the structure from the outside, and how he can ever fit into it. His childhood conversations with Frank, who had treated him as a black man from the beginning and tried to warn him about what it would be like in America, are something he frequently returns to as guideposts that help him explain the society he is encountering and trying to understand.
Ellison was always a part of the society he was describing, and is objecting to it as someone who doesn’t like where he finds himself on its inside. Ellison was rebelling against the various roles that American society wanted blacks to fill, asserting that they were either unjust by nature, or that they suppressed the humanity of blacks so that they couldn’t be ‘fully human,’ but only ‘black.’ (He also objects to certain liberation movements, especially Marxism, in a way that is worth reading — but not immediately relevant to the current discussion.)
Read together, I think the two pieces make clear what I’m trying to say. They also both — and especially together — add to our understanding of the issues. If this were a discussion on race in America, rather than a debate about who was best suited to be President, we might usefully compare and contrast the two books at much greater length.
Chris #115 —
Regarding Ayers’ connections to Obama, AJL in #101 linked to “this Politico piece by Michael Calderone.”:http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1008/NYT_Ayers_story_Critics_left_and_right.html?showall I haven’t followed Calderone’s writing, but will pay him more heed after following the link.
As AJL indicated, Calderone is skeptical of claims by Stanley Kurtz, Steve Diamond, and others that the Ayers/Obama connection runs deeper than stated in Scott Shane’s article in the Saturday NYT. Calderone goes on to provide links to Shane’s critics, so that readers can judge their arguments for themselves. That’s refreshing. I find the suggestions of meaningful pre-1995 dealings to be more credible than Shane’s dismissal, but there’s room for differences of opinion.
Grim –
bq. Sure. But not because he’d spent time abroad.
bq. I think the time abroad was important to the story. Indeed, to me it seems more important than his parentage. If he’d grown up in Chicago or Kansas, for example, this question of trying to fit in wouldn’t have been something he’d struggled with — he would have been put by his society into a place, either black or white, and by the time he was old enough to think about it he’d have long ago accepted the identity.
Well, no, not necessarily – there are plenty of kids who spend all their time in the US who go through similar dislocations, because they keep moving from place to place, and living with new parental figures at different stages in their childhood. And each of these moves gives them the opportunity – although it can just as easily be a curse – of creating a new identity for themselves, Having stayed in the US the whole time wouldn’t have been any guarantee that Obama wouldn’t have had similar experiences in high school, and come to similar conclusion about his identity.
But let’s cut to the chase here – you refer several times to Obama being an outsider – and use that outsiderness as a premise for the idea that he got rid of that outsiderness by taking up radical, anti-American politics. I’ve pointed out before that there’s no actual evidence that Obama supports the kind of politics Ayers does – and there are plenty of conservatives, like Ross Douthat and David Frum who think it’s similarly ridiculous – but not even the “outsider” part really works. Obama was born in the US, lived the majority of his childhood in the US, and there’s no evidence in the DfmF book that anyone thought of him as foreign, or otherwise un-American. He didn’t like the fact that white people considered him black and vice versa, but that’s a very, very different thing from being an actual immigrant who needed to assimilate, which is what I read you – repeatedly – as trying to convey about the man.
[Spam. Banned. –NM]
Chris:
“PROTIP: try breaking these up into separate posts.”
How about practicing what you preach then?
This is typical of your misreadings (deliberate?) of what people write:
“you’re just broadly hinting at it, both with your suggestion that rural folks are more moral, and more recently with your observation that rural and small town people are more polite. (Not in my experience, but what the heck.)”
Ever consider that fact is more about you than them? Just a thought. Keep in mind that I am myself an urbanite. I’m not judging from their side, I’m judging from mine.
So… you’re admitting that you are consistently hinting that rural folks are better than urban folks? To a point where I can’t even have my own opinions on the matter, but have to second-guess myself?
No, “that fact” refers to the last statement made by you prior to my use of the word “that”, which would be that your experience was that rural folk were less polite, apparently, than urbanites in your experience.
How you can read that as my somehow indicating that you can’t have your own opinions is, frankly, asinine. I also never said “rural folks are more moral”, I said they might be, on the whole. Are you saying that’s beyond the realm of possibility? Because that would be a pretty interesting statement.
“So… you say you won’t defend that remark, and then spend three paragraphs defending it. Nice.”
Uh, no he made a distinction demonstrating why the supposed equivalence you made was not accurate. Nuance, I guess.
Douglas, Grim spent 3 paragraphs downplaying the import of Libby saying why it’s OK to shoot federal agent in the head. That’s a defense of those remarks.
Here’s what Grim actually said:
“Now, I wouldn’t defend the remark. I realize incitement is taken seriously by the law. Nevertheless, it isn’t the same as actually setting bombs.
Furthermore, I don’t see how suggesting that someone should fire on someone inside their own home (in order to discourage the ATF from doing their job via SWAT style raids) is quite the same as saying that we should set bombs in public places (in order to overthrow the government of the United States).
That seems like a difference even if you were just saying that people should set bombs. Ayers and his folk used actual bombs.”
That is not a defense, it’s a comparison. But there’s no dissuading you.
I’ll leave you with a positive- I’ll give you that you may be right that Obama felt like he didn’t fit in for racial reasons and not because he felt like an immigrant.
BUT, why does that matter? Grim’s point way back in the string somewhere was that Obama has consistently fallen in with people who haven’t felt proud of their country, and in some cases, have actively worked about to bring it’s demise. He felt dislocated from the country he was born in and living in, for whatever reason, and was drawn to those who resented this country. A good record for a potential President?
“Ok, you’ve done a fine job of painting Ayers as a scummy terrorist, past and present – no argument there. That still doesn’t offer any kind of proof that Obama even remotely shares those beliefs…”
Perhaps you missed this earlier:
It’s stuff like this, in Obama’s own words, that fits right in with the crowd we’re accusing him of falling in with:
From an essay published in 1988 entitled “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,”-
“The debate as to how black and other dispossessed people can forward their lot in America is not new. From W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, this internal debate has raged between integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy, between sit-down strikes and board-room negotiations. The lines between these strategies have never been simply drawn, and the most successful black leadership has recognized the need to bridge these seemingly divergent approaches.”
Bridge between integration and (black) nationalism? Accommodation and militancy? Rather Ayers-esque, isn’t it?
I’d say that is proof that Obama, at least remotely shares those beliefs (those beliefs being socialism, race based liberation theology, perhaps even Marxism).
Douglas-
bq. _”PROTIP: try breaking these up into separate posts.”_
bq. How about practicing what you preach then?
Er… I did. I responded to Grim’s stuff in one set of posts, and all of your stuff in another set, rather than mixing and matching the two. I even went so far as to reply to your post #104 in not one, but two different comments.
bq. This is typical of your misreadings (deliberate?) of what people write:
bq. _”you’re just broadly hinting at it, both with your suggestion that rural folks are more moral, and more recently with your observation that rural and small town people are more polite. (Not in my experience, but what the heck.)”_
bq. Ever consider that fact is more about you than them? Just a thought. Keep in mind that I am myself an urbanite. I’m not judging from their side, I’m judging from mine.
bq. _So… you’re admitting that you are consistently hinting that rural folks are better than urban folks? To a point where I can’t even have my own opinions on the matter, but have to second-guess myself?_
bq. No, “that fact” refers to the last statement made by you prior to my use of the word “that”, which would be that your experience was that rural folk were less polite, apparently, than urbanites in your experience.
I understand what “that fact” referred to, Douglas – I was instead, referring to the fact that you didn’t deny my observation that you’re constantly implying that rural people are better (more moral, polite, etc.). Instead, you questioned the validity of my own personal experience.
bq. How you can read that as my somehow indicating that you can’t have your own opinions is, frankly, asinine.
Well, if I can’t trust my own experience on the matter, but instead have to have guys like you suggest that I don’t know what I’m talking about, that certainly seems to me like my opinions on the matter are somehow less valid, in your opinion.
bq. I also never said “rural folks are more moral”, I said they might be, on the whole.
And, I said you suggested that rural folks are more moral, not that you “said” it. In this context, there’s not a huge amount of difference, but the nuances seem important to you, and I have done my best to preserve them.
bq. Are you saying that’s beyond the realm of possibility? Because that would be a pretty interesting statement.
Oddly enough, other than saying it has not been my experience that rural folks are more polite, I haven’t really said much of anything about what they are or aren’t like. And I do believe I’ll keep it that way, thanks.
[On Grim’s remarks about Libby’s “shoot ’em in the head” remarks]
bq. That is not a defense, it’s a comparison. But there’s no dissuading you.
It’s a comparison made to downplay the import of Libby’s remarks. Which is to say, it’s a defense.
bq. I’ll leave you with a positive- I’ll give you that you may be right that Obama felt like he didn’t fit in for racial reasons and not because he felt like an immigrant.
Huzzah!
bq. BUT, why does that matter? Grim’s point way back in the string somewhere was that Obama has consistently fallen in with people who haven’t felt proud of their country, and in some cases, have actively worked about to bring it’s demise. He felt dislocated from the country he was born in and living in, for whatever reason, and was drawn to those who resented this country. A good record for a potential President?
Well, for one thing, Grim’s not only wrong that Obama felt alienated because he was a foreigner, he’s also wrong that Obama adapted to feeling like an outsider by hanging out with terrorists, communists, etc. Dreams from My Father is, as I remember, pretty clear on this – insofar as Obama did experience alienation, he tried to fit in by… _fitting in_, by wanting to be called “Barry”, by partying and drinking and doing drugs. Fairly typical teenage/college rebellion stuff, in other words.
It’s also frankly not true that Obama has “consistently fallen in” with such people – the only way you can realistically defend such a conclusion is to do what you did in #104, which is insist that there _must_ have been more to the Obama/Ayers relationship, because it takes so much more time than that to work out the bylaws. And, presumably, if they worked out the bylaws together, that’s pretty much the same thing as planning to blow up America, right?
(“…and so we agree on how the oversight for this particular fund should be handled. By the way Barack, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, I’d like to talk to you about why it’s a good idea to blow up the Pentagon.” “Sure thing, Mr. Ayers, that sounds nifty!”)
bq. It’s stuff like this, in Obama’s own words, that fits right in with the crowd we’re accusing him of falling in with:
[cut truncated quote to this essay, full version of the paragraph, with emphasis on previously removed bits follows:]
bq. _The debate as to how black and other dispossessed people can forward their lot in America is not new. From W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, this internal debate has raged between integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy, between sit-down strikes and boardroom negotiations. The lines between these strategies have never been simply drawn, and the most successful black leadership has recognized the need to bridge these seemingly divergent approaches. During the early years of the Civil Rights movement, many of these issues became submerged in the face of the clear oppression of segregation. *The debate was no longer whether to protest, but how militant must that protest be to win full citizenship for blacks.*_
bq. Bridge between integration and (black) nationalism? Accommodation and militancy? Rather Ayers-esque, isn’t it?
Well, no, not in the least, actually – the _whole point_ of what’s wrong with Ayers, and the Weathermen, was that they didn’t want integration or accommodation _at all_. They just wanted to blow stuff up. Some black nationalism and black militancy has taken Ayers-esque attitudes and, more importantly, actions, but a lot of it – most of it, really – has not.
Second, both the emphasized line above and the rest of the essay make it clear that Obama isn’t himself supporting black nationalism, but giving historical context to a well-known conflict in the civil rights struggle, and then talking about how those different sides of the historical struggle are playing themselves out in the (then-current) community organizing context. Moreover, if you actually read the essay, the parts of black nationalism Obama’s mostly referencing in a modern context are economic self-improvement and “Buy Black” campaigns.
bq. I’d say that is proof that Obama, at least remotely shares those beliefs (those beliefs being socialism, race based liberation theology, perhaps even Marxism).
Nope, that’s pretty clearly unsupported by actually reading through the essay. But let’s take this at face value: let’s say Obama really does believe in socialism, race-based liberation theology, and perhaps even Marxism. If so, you’re essentially alleging that he is a sleeper agent for the radical left – that there’s a handful of examples of how radical he actually is from the 90’s in the form of certain writings and meetings with radical leftists, but that, during this current decade, he’s been relatively “clean” and not taken any actual actions, as an elected official, that show how radical he actually is. (At least, I haven’t seen any documentation of such things… or even any suggestion of such actions from the usual Obama haters on the right.)
If that is the case, I have to wonder – what exactly would the point of such a conspiracy be? Do you think Obama talked things over with Ayers, Alinsky, etc., and decided that he’d bring down the US by disguising himself as a mainstream Democrat, rising in prominence far higher and faster than any black politician in history ever has (or had any reason to believe was possible), finally becoming President, and only THEN unleashing his evil Marxist/socialist/black liberation theology-based agenda? Is that what you’re really afraid is gonna happen? Because, frankly, Douglas, I can’t see any other reason why you’d take such a skewed perspective on an 18-year-old essay about community organizing.
Chris,
The continued ‘creative interpretations’ of what you and I have previously written is getting old. It’s a weak tactic, you obviously enjoy being laywerly and playing to ‘win’, as opposed to engaging in honorable debate.
Please, just reading the mental contortions you go through to defend Obama is tiring. I won’t have any more to do with you, as it’s a waste of time, obviously.
By the way, for all your bluster trying to convince us that there’s no real Ayers/Obama connection, and Obama isn’t really a socialist at heart, you might want to read this. Oh, and this. Hmmm, this too.
I mean, I figure you’d take Tom Hayden as a reliable source, right?
Douglas-
bq. The continued ‘creative interpretations’ of what you and I have previously written is getting old. It’s a weak tactic, you obviously enjoy being laywerly and playing to ‘win’, as opposed to engaging in honorable debate.
As I said in #116, Douglas, people who’re interested in “honorable debate” don’t use innuendo to insist that their political opponents _must_ secretly be socialists/Marxists/black liberation theologists… they point to actual evidence of such, or drop the claim as unfounded.
bq. Please, just reading the mental contortions you go through to defend Obama is tiring. I won’t have any more to do with you, as it’s a waste of time, obviously.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
bq. By the way, for all your bluster trying to convince us that there’s no real Ayers/Obama connection, and Obama isn’t really a socialist at heart, you might want to read this. Oh, and this. Hmmm, this too.
bq. I mean, I figure you’d take Tom Hayden as a reliable source, right?
Dude, Tom Hayden’s political time in the sun had come and gone half a decade before I was even born. I don’t much care what the guy says one way or another… but that said, your own link basically just says (via a link that doesn’t actually work any more) that Obama gave an anti-apartheid speech at a rally organized by a group that Hayden had had ties to a decade prior. That’s several degrees of separation between Obama and actual radical leftist beliefs… but I suppose pointing that out counts as “mental contortions” and “lawyerly tricks”, right?
I think I’ll let Hilzoy have the last word on this kind of paranoid delusion, and call it a day.
I’m not comfortable with the direction of the lefties. I don’t care what she said or what he said, it’s what they stand for that I’m interested in hearing. One was for the liberal illuminati, and I can’t support those types of socialist views.