The reality is that a member of McCain’s audience went there today. You can hear it clearly on this video clip taken from MSNBC– after McCain asks “Who is the real Barack Obama?” the first, loudest voice can be heard answering “Terrorist!”
From Marc Ambinder, who also has the video.
As for McCain being “in no way responsible for the utterances of anybody in his audience,” … that’s a pretty weak statement.
McCain is both desperate and despicable, and getting more so with every new poll.
Ezra Klein sums up McCain’s predicament pretty well.
Almost as bad as McCain-Pailin are themselves, is this nauseating cheerleading piece by Bill Kristol in the NYT: The Wright Stuff. Given her own lunatic-preacher connections, it’s predictable that Palin would parry Kristol’s invite to attack Obama through Wright with something like this: “But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”I can’t wait for this election to be over. I think Ezra Klein aptly describes this point in the campaign in the linked article:If McCain were to accept the likelihood of loss, his incentives would be to ensure he falls with honor. Instead, he insists, understandably, on holding fast to the increasingly slim possibility of winning. But that requires an increasingly vicious and desperate strategy that is, by turns, racist, bigoted, fear-mongering, and dishonest.
Wait… McCain is now supposed to be responsible for what some asshat in the audience blurts out?Really? It’s weak to disavow things like that?Really?
Offtopic: Not TOO familiar with blogger, is there a “Comments RSS” option?Thanks 🙂
Matthew Yglesias said it best:The truth is that the Vietnam era was a time of political extremism in the United States. And part of the way that era was brought to a close was by turning away from efforts to banish the extremists from public life. Segregationist politicians went on chairing their congressional committees. Black Panthers ran for congress and won. Liddy got a radio show and Ayers became a professor.
“The truth is that the Vietnam era was a time of political extremism in the United States.”So what’s your opinion of extremists from that period who say they only regret they did not do more bombing and they make such statements NOW?Oh and they say they would be willing to do it again.Went on?
Palin Proves Diplomatic ChopsWatch her graciously greet a visiting foreign ecclesiastical dignitary from Africa, and not go running off the state in an undiplomatic freak-out as he exhibits his strange foreign customs.Apparently some on the left think she should have done the latter.
“The reality is that a member of McCain’s audience went there today.”Wow, some clown at a political rally yelled something stupid attacking the opposing candidate. That must be McCain’s fault. Are you serious?”McCain is both desperate and despicable”He might be desperate but I haven’t seen anything that even remotely qualifies as “despicable.”Ezra Klein’s article is laughable and typical of someone too blind to see anything outside their own narrow partisan perspective. But anyone who has ever read anything by Klein, or watched him on Bloggingheads, already knew that.”But that requires an increasingly vicious and desperate strategy that is, by turns, racist, bigoted, fear-mongering, and dishonest.”Leave out the racist part, which is nonsense anyway, and you have a pretty good description of left-wing attacks on Palin.
Watch her graciously greet a visiting foreign ecclesiastical dignitary from Africa, and not go running off the state in an undiplomatic freak-out as he exhibits his strange foreign customs.Yay Sarah! She has mastered the skill set of a junior under-secretary’s assistant in the diplomatic corps. If she can get her underwear on the right way around, she’ll be ready for the presidency!Speaking of Mooselini, if she’s going to be working up her crowds to the point where they’re threatening violence to their opponents, can we have a one-month suspension of Godwin’s Law? I don’t know how else I can adequately comment.
“she’s going to be working up her crowds to the point where they’re threatening violence to their opponents,”Except of course, that she said nothing whatsoever encouraging any sort of violence. Amazingly enough, many people actually despise Bill Ayers (and his fellow terrorist wife) without needing to be told to. There’s just something about a domestic terrorist who got off on a technicality, still hates the U.S., feels he didn’t do enough on the terrorism front, and is now busy attempting to poison the minds of students that enrages many Americans — imagine that.
Why didn’t she say “Hey, none of that – we don’t threaten our opponents with violence in a democracy”?As far as I can tell, Ayers is not the same person he was 40 years ago. He’s an award-winning educator, praised by both Republicans and Democrats for his work with inner-city kids. If he got off scot-free for his crimes, it’s because the government tried to use illegal means to convict him. But even if he was still a red-toothed enemy of democracy, it’s a stretch to pin his views on Obama for the crime of sitting on the same educational committee. I mean really, when you sign up to be a parent volunteer, do you carefully vet the scoutmaster and the PTA parents to make sure none of them have a criminal past? Do you refuse to serve is someone was dirty 40 years ago? This guilt by association stuff is weak, slimy and pathetic in view of the real problems of the financial meltdown that McCain is trying to “turn the page” on. How about some action and leadership there, before I lose my job?
From what I’ve seen Ayers is the same person. He’s just no longer an active terrorist. After 9/11 he was saying he regretted not doing enough. “it’s a stretch to pin his views on Obama for the crime of sitting on the same educational committee.”It depends on what views are in question. If they worked on or helped direct a project together, it is reasonable to think that they both supported the project. It’s obviously unreasonable to think that they have to share the same views on everything, merely because they agree on something. Obama is being attacked for associating with Ayers, not for sharing his anti-American views. “I mean really, when you sign up to be a parent volunteer, do you carefully vet the scoutmaster and the PTA parents to make sure none of them have a criminal past? Do you refuse to serve is someone was dirty 40 years ago?”This is a strawman. Ayers is not someone hiding his past, or just some non-name guy that has an old criminal record. He’s a proud former member of the Weather Underground. There is no way someone as well-educated, and well-connected in Chicago as Obama didn’t know that.”This guilt by association stuff is weak, slimy and pathetic “We’ve had this argument before, but the whole guilt by association/distraction argument is what is weak. People are judged partly by their associates, especially people we don’t otherwise know much about. That goes double for someone wanting to be president. When the Ayers connection was first brought up I thought it was kind of weak. But then it turned out that Obama lied about the extent of his association with Ayers, indicating that there was more there. It’s a legitimate issue for McCain to raise, and there’s nothing slimy about it. It may not work, but there’s nothing wrong with pointing out the type of people Obama has associated with in order to attack his judgment. Just as there’s nothing wrong with Obama bringing up the Keating scandal. Plus, the position of most Obama supporters is completely hypocritical on this issue. If McCain had had the exact same level of association with anyone similar to Ayers on the right, they’d be screaming that it should disqualify him from the presidency.”How about some action and leadership there, before I lose my job?”Government action is more likely to cost you your job than inaction. It should be obvious by now that the politicians have no idea what to do, and that they have no control over the economy. Neither McCain nor Obama can fix a worldwide economic crisis, but by implementing unwise short-term fixes they could well help make it last longer.
So what’s your opinion of extremists from that period who say they only regret they did not do more bombing and they make such statements NOW?First, the NYT quoted Ayers as saying he thought bombing was not a good idea and had been a mistake.Second, I have low opinion of such extremists – even those who now regret their past violence. But eventually, the guilt by association has to stop. Jerry Falwell was pro-segregation, but I’m not going to use that to tar Mel White, who ghostwrote some of his books. Pat Robertson suggested bombing Foggy Bottom, but that doesn’t make Giuliani, who accepted his endorsement, a terrorist sympathizer. Strom Thurmond’s entire political career revolved around loathing black people, but that doesn’t make the Republican Party, which made him president pro tempore, racist.So far, Obama’s the only one who rejected and denounced explicit support from extremists. He had some casual acquaintance with Ayers, but in certain circles, it’s hard not to know extremists. My small-time atheist student group is currently getting hit with requests for sponsoring a book tour by the Revolutionary Communist Party. Even if we completely reject them, there’s a paper trail that could later be used to argue that we’re in cahoots with communists.
Well, lets be realistic Alon, communism and atheism are practically the same thing; both deny the divine inspiration of George W. Bush.
While we’re on the subject of atheism, occasionally people try to pull us in the other direction – e.g. by suggesting we put a 9/11 poster with “Imagine no religion” on it. It just happens less because most of that gets filtered through a basically liberal organization.A surprisingly large amount of the push for atheism nowadays is right-wing. Of the four most prominent new atheists, two (Harris and Hitchens) are neocons, and two (Dennett and Dawkins) are liberal.
“A surprisingly large amount of the push for atheism nowadays is right-wing.”Since I’m a right-wing atheist, that doesn’t surprise me :).
Btw, Sam Harris is not even close to being a neocon, unless you are using it in the generic left-wing slur form — ie, anyone that disagrees with the left about any aspect of foreign policy. Being concerned about the threat of radical Islam doesn’t make you a neocon, it just makes you rational. I like things about Harris, but he’s no right-winger, let alone a necocon. Here’s Harris on the Iraq War:”I have never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it has been a disaster.”
Btw, Sam Harris is not even close to being a neoconHe said that some ideas (specifically, religious fundamentalism) are so dangerous it’s acceptable to kill people for believing them. Then he said that the US should consider nuclear strikes against Islamists.The quote you give shows he’s against the Iraq war on grounds of competence. He was never part of the clique that Bush listened to – Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. – so it’s not surprising that his idea of which countries to bomb first to spread democracy differs from this of the neocon mainstream. If that means he’s not a neocon, then it also means that Trotsky was not a communist and Chomsky isn’t an anarchist.
“He said that some ideas (specifically, religious fundamentalism) are so dangerous it’s acceptable to kill people for believing them. Then he said that the US should consider nuclear strikes against Islamists.”No, he most certainly didn’t. Go to his website and read here what he has to say about people twisting his words. And by the way, if he did actually believe that, he wouldn’t be a neocon. “The quote you give shows he’s against the Iraq war on grounds of competence”It shows no such thing. He clearly states that he thought it was a “distraction” from Afghanistan. Who have I heard that from before? Yeah, Obama, and practically every Democrat.” He was never part of the clique that Bush listened to – Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc”Yes, because he quite clearly is not a neocon, and there’s no indication that he’s even a Republican. You are seriously trying to make an argument that someone who opposed the Iraq War for reasons similar to many Democrats is a neocon. That’s ridiculous enough. But on top of that, you are basing your theory on misinterpretations and outright falsehoods about his writings. Have you actually read anything Harris has written? Do you know what neocons — real ones, not imaginary ones — actually believe? I’ll give you a hint, they aren’t in favor of preemptive nuclear strikes to wipe out Islam. Maybe you missed Bush for the last eight years bending over backwards to avoid even suggesting that the Islamic religion might be responsible for terrorism, and even going so far as to call the war by the silly moniker of the “War on Terror,” rather than something more accurate such as a war against radical Islam.”so it’s not surprising that his idea of which countries to bomb first to spread democracy differs from this of the neocon mainstream.”Where are you getting this garbage from? Let me guess, some left-wing nut that hates Harris and also has no idea what a neocon is — other than a slur to be used against anyone with ideas he disagrees with. Harris never advocated bombing anyone to spread democracy. I’m sorry, but recognizing that radical Islam is a threat and speaking out against it does not make someone a neocon.
I’m sorry, even his clarification is stupid. Everything he says about Islamists could’ve been plausibly said about communists in 1946. Many an extremist Republican used that argument to advocate a first strike against the yet nuke-free Soviet Union. The US didn’t attack, Stalin (and later Mao) did get nuclear weapons, and deterrence ensued.Harris isn’t a traditional neocon the way Perle or even Hitchens is, so maybe the tag is incorrect. But he hates Muslims, often on flimsy and ignorant grounds, and ends up suggesting the US should wage war on all of them to promote secularism. At home he is as elitist as Irving Kristol, though unlike Kristol he hasn’t allied himself with religion in order to achieve his aims.Mind you, it’s not as if Dawkins and Dennett are traditional leftists, either. But on most political issues, they’re liberal. That’s why I said it’s 2/2.
“I’m sorry, even his clarification is stupid”You appear to have totally missed his point and are completely ignoring the context. Have you read “The End of Faith”? I have. He was talking about a hypothetical situation where the U.S. faced an Islamist state that possessed a long-range nuclear arsenal (for example, consider Pakistan ruled by Islamists, and in possession of an ICBM arsenal aimed at the U.S.). He was not talking about any situation that exists today, and he was clearly not advocating any course of action. He was speculating on the decision we might face and why deterrence could not be relied upon in that situation. The whole thing was a philosophical exercise based on a hypothetical."Many an extremist Republican used that argument to advocate a first strike "He wasn't advocating anything. Your analogy is meaningless."But he hates Muslims"Even this is a gross overstatement. He's an atheist who doesn't like religion. He happens to recognize that Islam, by way of its extremist elements, currently represents the worst threat. This is why extreme left-wingers dislike him, because he doesn't share their view that the threat of militant Islam is overblown, and that fundamentalist Christians at home are the greater threat. "often on flimsy and ignorant grounds"Such as? There are plenty of good reasons to hate Islam, especially if you already opposed to religion in general."ends up suggesting the US should wage war on all of them to promote secularism"He has never suggested any such thing. Show me where he has. He hasn't advocated for any war at all."At home he is as elitist as Irving Kristol"So what? Elitists are found with ideas and political affiliations of all types."Mind you, it's not as if Dawkins and Dennett are traditional leftists, either. But on most political issues, they're liberal."I've read Dawkins and Dennett as well. Dawkins is clearly on the left. Dennett is less overtly political, although I agree that he's a liberal."That's why I said it's 2/2"Hitchens can reasonably be described as a neocon. I'm not sure exactly what Harris' political views are. But they certainly aren't favorable to Republicans on many issues. Other than recognizing the Islamist threat — something that cuts across party lines — I don't know of another issue position that he has taken that would indicate that he is to the right. I'd be very surprised if doesn't vote for Obama. I'd say it's more like 1 right/2 left and 1 independent.From the atheist perspective, rather than the political, I find Harris & Dennett more alike, and group Hitchens with Dawkins. The latter two are much more of the militant, obnoxious atheist type that really annoy people, and generally give atheism a bad name.