Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can we talk about the direction the MPC is going in lately?
I need to get on my soapbox here for a second because I've been really upset about the MPC's latest turn.
Yesterday I read this bit in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html
Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."
(I looked up thunder sticks...they are those inflated toys that you see at sporting events that when you clap them together, they make a sound like thunder)
On top of that, there's:
- the disgustingly racist op-ed that a member of MPC wrote and published in a VA paper (I posted the link on Sunday)
- the video where McCain asks "Who is Obama" and someone screams "terrorist"
- the reports that someone yelled "Kill him" when Palin was talking about Obama at a rally, that the Secret Service is now investigating
- and the general "Obama is palling around with terrorists" and "who is this Wright guy" and stuff like that that has been surfacing at rallies and interviews
What the hell?
Ordinarily, I don't think campaigns should be held responsible for the actions of their audiences. But, it seems that they are inciting this stuff. They aren't firing the guy who wrote the racist op-ed, and they aren't issuing any statements that denounce the behavior that is erupting at their rallies. And, they keep talking about it knowing that this is the response it is generating.
If you think I am over-reacting, imagine if John Kerry in 2004 started talking about how Bush "pals around with war criminals" or otherwise legitimized the views of the fringe left that Bush is Hitler. Imagine if a centerpiece of his platform was to rally against the media, intimidated by the fear mongering of the Bush administration who didn't ask the tough questions before going into Iraq? Would that have been appropriate for a leader?
I'll agree that wanting Obama to be open about his past associations is a legitimate issue. But it seems they've crossed a line and are now actively encouraging people to view Obama as a terrorist. By trying to tie Obama with the scary, leftist fringe groups, the MPC is validating the racist, scary views of the fringe right. How is that acceptable?
Reading the report of that rally above, and hearing about the audience responses...it's very upsetting. I feel like the MPC is exposing the absolute worst of America. It makes me worry about what type of administration they would run, but more importantly, it makes me worry about what type of reaction we'll see from the right wing fringe if Obama wins. They have legitimized the crazies, and it's really frightening to me.
Does anyone else agree? Or disagree? What is going on in people's heads about this right now?
Re: Can we talk about the direction the MPC is going in lately?
the reports that someone yelled "Kill him" when Palin was talking about Obama at a rally, that the Secret Service is now investigating
That also came from the Clearwater rally.
Overall the campaign tatics are lower than low. I am hoping that it backfires.
my read shelf:
I thought they fired the guy who wrote that op-ed piece... unless I'm thinking about someone else.
I completely agree. Frankly, I think McCain's refusal to say anything to Obama last night was cowardly. (Yeah, I know he fought bravely. Blah blah blah. That doesn't mean he can't ever in his life act cowardly.) If there's any merit to this stuff, why not ask the man about it? And I don't care for a minute that McCain wasn't asked about it - the candidates don't otherwise seem to feel constrained by the actual question asked.
As a side note: I love thunder sticks. We got some at Sunday's Brewers game. I had so much fun with them that I had busted one of mine in the first inning. I stole GmcG's, but he took it back because he claimed I was embarassing myself. I was just enthusiastic!
This is typical. Generally the VP nominees act as the attack dogs so that the Pres nominees appear to be above the fray.
As for the MPC, I think it reeks of desperation, and I'm not referring simply to letting supporters yell awful things at rallies (I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point and presume that Palin didn't hear these things). The campaign is in a tailspin and is struggling to regain its footing. It is typical to start catering to darker inclinations when a campaign is falling behind. It's ugly and many recognize exactly what is going on here, hence the various proclamations you now are hearing from pundits, including some conservatives, that McCain has lost the election.
I'm not convinced there is much the candidates can do. There are radical crazies that are activists within the party. I will admit that I attended a Young Republican national gathering in 2003 and there were a handful of absolute wack jobs who would shout out the craziest nonsense. At times it was totally hilarious how strange these people were, but then it was at other times downright offensive. Rallies attract these sort of crazies as well.
And I'm assuming the same is true for both parties.
I agree. There will always be crazies every where on both sides. I guess the difference is, John Kerry never validated the Bush = Hitler crazies, whereas McCain and Palin are validating the Obama = Islamist Terrorist crazies. Palin is saying "Obama pals around with terrorists."
When John Kerry was behind in the polls, would it have been OK for him to validate the views of the fringe on the Daily Kos and say "Bush pals around with war criminals" in his rallies? If he had said those things and pandered to the conspiracy theorists on the Daily Kos, would you have any respect for him as a leader or a president?
That's what we are looking at here. They have lead this campaign into a seedy, dark place. Until they stop making accusations about Obama's terrorist ties, and until they issue a statement denouncing the behavior at their rallies, they are continuing to validate the views of the right wing fringe. That is what is so scary.
Agreed. John McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" at a rally on Monday. You could hear somebody yell out "Terrorist!" The scary part was that McCain started to smirk. He appeared to catch himself at the last instant and plowed ahead, but you could tell that he heard it and said nothing about it.
I went to a McCain/Palin rally and nothing like that happened. I don't think any of that is routine or widespread. Why on earth would anyone assume racists would comprise a part of McCain's administration b/c of some random crazy person in an audience? That makes no sense. McCain is out there rattling off names of Democrats who would be part of his cabinet for crying out loud.
While we're discussing the public and its comments, I'd like to point out the left wing fringe is vitriolic. Bush was called a terrorist, a murderer, hitler and satan. If you go on cafepress you can buy tshirts that say all of the above. So please let's not get on a high horse about right wing crazies.
If Obama doesn't want to be associated with homegrown terrorists then he shouldn't have worked with homegrown terrorists. Did you seriously think a connection like that wouldn't be brought up in a national election? We know the name of Wasila's librarian but we're not supposed to talk about Bill Ayres? What if McCain had worked with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber? We all know Obama would be all over that. Obama's trying to make a big deal out Keating 5 and McCain's supposed Iran Contra connection - aka right wing terrorists. He's doing his best to make McCain appear to have untoward associations and muddy him up. This is not one-sided and it's typical of elections. It should have been expected.
I agree that you cannot equate the "Obama is a muslim" nonsense with raising the issue of his affiliation with radical extremists. The latter is fair game in my opinion.
You went a while ago, right? These are recent things. They have only raised the Obama is a terrorist issue in the last couple days. All these reports have happened in response to their recent strategy.
And while I don't think McCain would put racists in his cabinet (I apologize if I insinuated that, that wasn't my intention), there is a 527 called the Judicial Network running ads right now suggesting that Obama would put terrorists on the bench. Obviously, McCain can't be held responsible for the 527s, but that's the direction the 527s are going in.
I am not saying that the right wing crazies are worse than the left wing crazies or that they are somehow more numerous, more scary, or more off base. They are all equally deranged.
What I am saying is that Kerry and Obama did not take them seriously and the McCain campaign is. Would it really have been OK for Kerry to say "Bush pals around with war criminals" just because the right has crazies too?
McCain has called G. Gordon Liddy a good friend, has done fundraisers with him, and whatnot. G. Gordon Liddy is a nutjob who has plotted bombings and participated in Watergate. Hardly a sane person. McCain participated in the World Economic Forum, a group of crazy racist anti-semites. Ambassador Annenberg's wife has endorsed McCain, and it's the Annenberg foundation that funded the charity that Obama and Ayers sat on. Is she a terrorist too? Palin's minister is an anti-semetic witch doctor. And the recent reports about the Alaska Independence Party aren't really favorable for them - the founder may have had ties to Iran and was a total and complete nutjob. Todd Palin was a member, they have endorsed Palin, and she spoke at their meetings.
But because rational people don't think McCain or Palin are anti-semites or secessionists, Obama isn't raising the issue. He's not legitimizing the Daily Kooks.
I will say that his ties to William Ayers is fair game. But it is the means they are going about it - having the people who introduce them at rallies refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, asking if Obama is really an American, whatever, that is so seedy. That is what legitimizes the fringe.
In any event, I have to leave for a couple hours, so I won't be back on to respond for a while.
ESF- You just rattled off a bunch of anti-McCain stuff the equivalent of what the right wing crazies are saying about Obama. Where did you get all that from except the Obama camp and its cronies on the blogs/media? There's a reason all those nasty little attacks from the left are common knowledge. Both sides are trading barbs like it's their duty. Obama doesn't need to say all that in a speech b/c the media does it for him better. But make no mistake that it is the Dem party that is releasing this info. It was Obama that sent representatives to AK to dig up dirt on Palin. It's the Dem party that has files on McCain and every bad thing he's ever done. That's the source.
I haven't heard Palin or McCain say anything about Obama being a terrorist or sympathasizing with terrorists' agendas. Saying Obama has friends that are terrorists is a shocking statement. The sad thing is that Obama's connections are inflammatory and shocking.
Feel free to bring up McCain's connections. They are fair game since Obama's are. But McCain never worked with Liddy like Obama worked with Ayers. The AIP might be out there but it's not as bad as ACORN. Palin's 2 churches can't hold a candle to Wright and his kook conspiracies, and her minister wasn't on her campaign staff as an adviser. My point is that your side can't win on the issue of who has worse connections. I think the left knows that, which is why it's being so defensive about the subject even being brought up. Hillary Clinton warned the Dems in a debate that Obama's connections would be an issue in the G/E. She was right and her advice probably should have been heeded.
I wish we could have an election based on policies alone, I really do. But that's not the world we live in and it never was. It's easier and frankly more effective to attack these little things. If it helps, I think Obama is handling it the best he can and I wouldn't worry about the muslim/terrorist stuff being widespread.
They know darn well that there are many people out there who think that Obama is a real-life, fanatic Islamic terrorist in disguise and they are milking it. It is definitely not the way say, Bush was called a terrorist. There are people who really believe he will enslave them or sell them out to Al Qaeda. And I'm sure to get flamed for this, but you'll have to forgive me if historically I'm troubled by angry mobs, "the black guy", and people yelling, "Kill him!".
I agree with ESF here. The MCP campaign is not only exposing a very dark underbelly but flaunting it proudly. It makes me feel sad. This isn't about my political leanings either. I was so genuinely disgusted by what the Bush operatives did to McCain in 2000 and now I see him doing it to Obama, but this time it's way, way worse. If MCP wins by using these tactics, I think it will be very hard to look at them for the next four years. He has become what he purported to hate, and now he's trying to take the country with him.
"In South Carolina in 2000, Bush crushed John McCain with a sub-rosa primary campaign of such viciousness that McCain lashed out memorably against Bush?s Christian-right allies.
Since the 2004 election, however, McCain has moved remorselessly rightward in his quest for the Republican nomination. He paid obeisance to Jerry Falwell and preachers of his ilk. He abandoned immigration reform, eventually coming out against his own bill. Most shocking, McCain, who had repeatedly denounced torture under all circumstances, voted in February against a ban on the very techniques of ?enhanced interrogation? that he himself once endured in Vietnam?as long as the torturers were civilians employed by the C.I.A.
Echoing Obama, McCain has made ?change? one of his campaign mantras. But the change he has actually provided has been in himself, and it is not just a matter of altering his positions. A willingness to pander and even lie has come to define his Presidential campaign and its televised advertisements. A contemptuous duplicity, a meanness, has entered his talk on the stump?so much so that it seems obvious that, in the drive for victory, he is willing to replicate some of the same underhanded methods that defeated him eight years ago in South Carolina."
You don't think there are "real-life" people who think Bush is a terrorist, a murdering war-monger? We'll have to agree to disagree.
The idea that there are mobs yelling to "kill the black guy" is so misguided, inaccurate and inflammatory I don't even know where to begin. Get your facts straight. You are seriously exaggerating. ONE crazy person yelled out "kill him." ONE. There's no angry mob. Stop trying to make a race riot where there isn't one.
I really couldn't have found a better way to say it, so ditto.
You're saying McCain has to act without integrity because the media won't do it for him? Come on. Drop the conservative persecution complex. Next you'll be saying this is Obama's fault for not agreeing to town halls. No one outside of the E08 obsessive community knows about McCain's shady connections. Everyone knows about Ayers. I'll give you one guess as to why that is.
BUT, the Ayres connection should not even be inflammatory. Ayres has won the Chicago Citizen of the Year Award and is a professor at a well-respected university. To call him a terrorist is beyond misleading, and the MCP knows it. To say Obama should not be POTUS because he "palled around" with Ayres is to discount anyone who has been involved in IL politics or anyone who has worked at or attended the University of Chicago. It is a patently ridiculous claim and plays to the lowest possible denominator.
If Obama wins b/c he painted McCain has a senile old man, ready to die of cancer at any moment it will be very hard for me to look at him for the next four years. This works both ways.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about how much worse McCain's tactics are than anyone else's. I haven't heard McCain say anything that crossed the line. Palin brought up Obama's connections but since his connections are shocking, there's no way to discuss them without sounding shocking. When she calls Obama a terrorist or a muslim I'll agree with the left that she needs to apologize. Until then I'd like Obama to explain why he associated himself with Bill Ayers, and then why he thought no one would hear about it during a national election.
I don't think McCain acted without integrity, first of all. Second, the mainstream media has stories about McCain's connections with Liddy. I just read about it in the Chicago Tribune. So you're quite wrong about the extent of that.
If you don't think Ayers is a terrorist then we can't go on about this b/c we can't even agree on the basic definitions of the issue. I don't care that a lot of IL people hang out with Ayers. He's a despicable person and I'm not going to give anyone a pass just b/c associating with Ayers is politically expedient in some zip codes. Obama has to take the good with the bad. He can't benefit from Ayers and then act like he has nothing to do with him when it comes back to bite him in the ass.
I can't quote because it times out every time I try, but...
Bill Ayers used bombs as political activism. How is that anything less than terroristic?
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Oh and persecution complex? Have you seen the polls about how many people think the media is in the tank for Obama? Perception is reality.
I think BlackMamba said it very well - comparing what Bush did to McCain in 2000 to what MPC is doing now. That was dirty.
I don't get how this Ayers relationship is "shocking." It's been discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed. Where is the shock? You either think "once a radical, always a radical" or you think what someone was 40 years ago is not the same thing they are now. Either way, I don't see the shock.
Here's what I don't get: How on earth is any non-partisan, undecided person supposed to believe that Obama "pals around with terrorists"? I mean really. How would anyone in this country rise to any political power with that kind of history? Outside of former Klansman in the south - I'm thinking of a David Duke. I mean, no one so extreme would ever be elected. I can see how this whips up the party faithful, but who would be convinced by that who isn't already an MPC sympahtizer?
As ESF pointed out it hasn't been "discussed and discussed and discussed." It's only been discussed in the past few weeks and nowhere in the mainstream media until this week. The "shock" is for people who didn't know Obama's connection to Ayers. People who know about Ayers won't be shocked to hear his past or the fact that he is still unrepentant and extreme. But they will be shocked to learn Obama worked with him. Those who don't think an association with him is shocking must not realize who Ayers really is.?
If you think bringing up the connection is unconvincing then don't worry about what Palin or some 527 brings up. In fact, if you think it won't sway anyone then you should want them to keep mentioning it b/c it would just backfire by igniting the left's base.?